Lawrence v. Yates

Filing 34

ORDER denying 33 Application for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 3/10/2010. (Order electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent. On September 4, 2008, Petitioner William Carl Lawrence ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 29, 2010, this Court denied the Petition in its entirety. (Doc. No. 30.) Pending now before the Court is Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability ("COA"). The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1.(d.1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Petitioner's application for a COA. Petitioner, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc No. 33.) WILLIAM CARL LAWRENCE, CASE NO. 08-CV-1626-W (POR) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1-

08cv1626

1 I. 2

LEGAL STANDARD Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

3 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) ("AEDPA"), a state prisoner may not appeal the denial 4 of a section 2254 habeas petition unless he obtains a COA from a district or circuit 5 judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 6 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue COAs 7 under the AEDPA). 8 In deciding whether to grant a COA, a court must either indicate the specific 9 issues supporting a certificate or state reasons why a certificate is not warranted. Asrar, 10 116 F.3d at 1270. A court may issue a COA only if the applicant has made a 11 "substantial showing" of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 12 The Supreme Court has elaborated on the meaning of this requirement: 13 14 15 16 18 19 II. 20 D ISCUSSION Petitioner argues that three issues warrant a COA in this case: (1) whether this Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy section 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

17 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (emphasis added).

21 Court abused its discretion and denied him due process of law in regards to his Miranda 22 claim; (2) whether clearly established federal law required a jury, not the trial court, to 23 establish Petitioner's prior convictions, and (3) whether Petitioner's Sixth and 24 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court, not the jury, made 25 factual findings to support the imposition of consecutive sentences. (Doc. No. 33 at 26 3­4.) 27 This Court previously denied each of the specific claims Petitioner believes merit 28 a COA. (See Doc. No. 30 at 6­10.) This Court has also thoroughly reviewed the -208cv1626

1 instant Application. Petitioner has not raised any novel questions of law or made a 2 substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find the Court's assessment of the 3 constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, the 4 Court DENIES Petitioner's request for a COA on all three claims. (Doc. No. 33.) 5 6 IV. 7 9 10 11 12 DATED: March 10, 2010 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -308cv1626

CONCLUSION AND ORDER In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for a Certificate

8 of Appealability. (Doc. No. 33.) IT IS SO ORDERED

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge