Johnson v. Stelle

Filing 42

ORDER denying 38 motion for certificate of appealability. Signed on 9/26/13 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
ERNEST JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-08001-CV-W-DGK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
This case arises from Petitioner Ernest Johnson’s (“Johnson’s”) three first-degree murder
convictions and death sentence. On February 20, 2013, the Court issued an order (Doc. 30)
denying Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). In the same order (Doc. 30), pursuant
to Rule 11(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, the Court declined to issue a
certificate of appealability for the claims presented in Johnson’s Petition. Currently pending
before the Court is Johnson’s Application for Certificate of Appealability (“Application”) (Doc.
38), which requests the Court reconsider its denial of the certificate of appealability. The
Application seeks permission to appeal the Court’s denial of relief on claims I, II, III, IV, V, and
VII in Johnson’s Petition.1 After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs,2 the Application is
DENIED.
As a jurisdictional prerequisite to appealing the denial of habeas corpus relief, a petitioner
must seek a certificate of appealability from either a court of appeals judge or the presiding
district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); see

1

2

Johnson did not petition the Court to issue a certificate of appealability on claims VI and VIII.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered Johnson’s Application (Doc. 38), Respondent’s Suggestions in
Opposition of the Application (Doc. 40), and Johnson’s Reply Suggestions in Support of His Application (Doc. 41). 

also Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997). To obtain a certificate of appealability,
the petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could
disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could
conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327 (citations omitted).
Johnson has failed to satisfy the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability.
For claims II, III, IV, V, and VII he argues that the Missouri courts erred in denying his various
constitutional claims. The question, however, is not whether the state properly decided the
claims in the first instance, but rather, whether the district court properly resolved the
constitutional claims through the application of AEDPA. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (“The
COA determination…[requires the reviewing court to] look to the District Court’s application of
AEDPA to petitioner’s constitutional claims and ask[s] whether that resolution was debatable
among jurists of reason.”) (emphasis added). Even for claim I, which was argued under the
proper standard, the Court finds that its application of AEDPA did not result in a “resolution
[that] was debatable among jurists of reason.”

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the

Application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2013_______

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2