Williams v. Curtin
ORDER Granting in part Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MOSES KEON WILLIAMS,
Case Number 09-13106
Honorable David M. Lawson
ORDER GRANTING IN PART CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner, Moses Keon Williams, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging
three grounds for relief. The petitioner contends that (1) the trial court violated his Sixth
Amendment right to present a defense when it refused to permit him to call an alibi witness that he
failed to disclose in a timely manner; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by, among
other things, failing to make a timely investigation of his alibi witness or request a continuance to
permit a complete investigation; and (3) the trial court violated his rights under the Due Process
Clause by unreasonably denying his postconviction motion for relief from judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
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 (2003)
(internal quotes and citations omitted).
The Court concluded that the petitioner has not established that a decision of any state court
on the issues he raises was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law, and that reasonable jurists could not debate the Court’s conclusions as to his second and third
grounds for relief. However, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether the claim
that the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was violated by exclusion of his
alibi witness should have been resolved in a different manner, and it therefore will grant a certificate
of appealability as to that claim only.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED as to the
petitioner’s first claim regarding the exclusion of his alibi witness only.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: February 20, 2013
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on February 20, 2013.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL
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?