Williams v. Ault

Filing 61

ORDER granting 60 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Senior Judge Donald E OBrien on 4/12/13. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL TERRY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
vs.

No. 09-CV-3059-DEO

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_________________________
This matter is before the Court on Mr. Williams’s Motion
for a Certificate of Appealability.
I.

Docket # 60.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Mr. Williams filed the present action, a petition for

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on August 31,
2009.

Mr. Williams originally filed the Petition in the

Southern District of Iowa.

The case was transferred to this

Court, and on April 14, 2010, the Court conducted an initial
review and allowed Mr. Williams’s case to proceed.

After

holding two hearings in 2011 and reviewing the parties briefs,
the Court denied Mr. Williams’s Petition for habeas relief on
March 29, 2013.

II.

ANALYSIS
Mr. Williams filed the present Motion for a Certificate

of Appealability on April 5, 2013.
situations,

a

party

must

Under the Code, in most

receive

a

Certificate

of

Appealability before that party can appeal a district court’s
ruling on a habeas petition to the circuit court.

1

28 U.S.C.

§2253(c)(2) gives the District Court discretionary power to
grant a Certificate of Appealability. Under that section, the
Court should only issue a certificate of appealability if “the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482

(2000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)).

In Slack, the Supreme

Court defined “substantial showing” as follows:
To obtain a [certificate of appealability]
under §2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make
a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, a demonstration that,
under Barefoot, includes showing that
reasonable jurists could debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a
different manner or that the issues
presented were “‘adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.’”

1

See, generally, 28 U.S.C. §2253.
2

Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893, and n.4, 103 S.
Ct. 3383, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1090 (sum[ming] up
the “substantial showing” standard).
Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. See also Garrett v. United States,
211 F.3d 1075, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2000).
In his habeas Petition, Mr. Williams raised two primary
arguments.
multiple

Mr Williams’s first argument was that there were

levels

of

conflicts

between

himself

and

other

witnesses represented by his trial attorney and that his trial
attorney

had

a

conflict

with

the

prosecuting

attorneys’

office. Mr. Williams’s second argument was that his appellate
attorneys were ineffective for failing to raise all of his
claims, and for failing to appeal an [allegedly] adverse
ruling by the Iowa Court of Appeals.

In its Order denying Mr.

Williams’s § 2254 petition, the Court found that neither Mr.
Williams’s trial attorney nor his appellate attorneys were
ineffective.
Even though the Court is satisfied with its ruling, the
Court believes that it is possible that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether...the petition should have been resolved
in a different manner”.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84.

As the

Court pointed out in its original Order, it is clear that
3

there were a number of unfortunate interrelationships between
the Cerro Gordo County Attorney’s Office and the local public
defender’s office, that cast a shadow over Mr. Williams’s
conviction.

The existence of the circuit courts and the

Supreme Court is a testament to the fact that district courts
are not infallible.

The Court's decision in this case was a

judgment call, and this Court is of the opinion that all its
judgment calls should be reviewable.

Mr. Williams’s claim is

sufficiently well founded that a review would be appropriate.
The case of Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518 (8th Cir.
1997) states that in granting a Certificate of Appealability,
this Court must state the issues upon which the applicant may
have

made

a

substantial

constitutional rights.

showing

of

the

denial

of

his

Accordingly, Mr. Williams may appeal

the issues of whether his trial attorney was ineffective
regarding the alleged impermissible conflicts of interest, and
whether his appellate attorneys were ineffective for failing
to raise all his claims and for failing to pursue an appeal of
the ruling of the Iowa Court of Appeals.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion

for certificate of appealability, Docket # 60, is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2013.

__________________________________
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa

5