Degraffinreid v. Lafler
Filing
41
OPINION and ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DEGRAFFINREID,
Case Number: 2:04-CV-73732
Petitioner,
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
v.
BLAINE C. LAFLER,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Michigan prisoner Michael Degraffinreid filed a habeas corpus petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, raising five separate claims for habeas corpus relief: right to public trial
violated; ineffective assistance of counsel; defective burden of proof instruction; right to
present a defense violated; and insufficient evidence presented. The Court denied
Petitioner’s claims for relief on all counts, determining that the claims lacked merit and
entered a judgment against Petitioner.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed
unless a certificate of appealability (COA) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A certificate
of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a
certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide
reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P.
22(b); In re Certificates of Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To
receive a certificate of appealability, “a petitioner must show 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed.2d
931 (2003) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
In denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court determined that the
state court had reasonably analyzed Petitioner’s claims concerning his right to a public
trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, the right to present a defense, and sufficiency of
the evidence. The Court also determined that Petitioner’s jury instruction claim was
procedurally defaulted. The Court now finds that reasonable jurists could not debate that
this Court correctly denied each of Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, the Court will deny the
petitioner a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: May 20, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date,
May 20, 2011, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?