Franklin v. Woods

Filing 20

ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKY FRANKLIN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case Number 09-13466
Honorable David M. Lawson

JEFF WOODS,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner, Ricky Franklin, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging twelve
grounds for relief. The petitioner contends that (1) his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective,
(2) the trial court erred by admitting or excluding various items of testimony, (3) the trial court
improperly denied his motions for a new trial and for a directed verdict, (4) the prosecutor
knowingly allowed a witness to give false testimony and made comments that improperly shifted
the burden of proof during closing arguments, (5) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (6) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on whether small
drug transactions could be aggregated to meet a statutory minimum quantity, (7) cumulative error
required the grant of habeas relief, and (8) the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in
deciding the petitioner’s postconviction motion for relief from judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts:
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

Procedure 22.
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 now concludes that none of the petitioner’s claims have merit, 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 at to any of the claims that the petitioner has raised. The Court
therefore will deny a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: November 19, 2012

-2-

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 November 19, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-3-