Ochoa v. Workman

Filing 21

ORDER denying certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 12/3/12. (kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GEORGE OCHOA,
Petitioner,
vs.
ANITA TRAMMELL, Warden,
Oklahoma State Penitentiary,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-12-1313-R

ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing through counsel, filed his Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (hereinafter
“Petition”). On this date, relief was denied as to each ground in the Memorandum Opinion
and Order, and Judgment was issued. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas
Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, the Court denies a Certificate of Appealability.
The Court recognizes that “review of a death sentence is among the most serious
examination any court of law ever undertakes.” Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343, 1370
(10th Cir. 1994). To be granted a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must demonstrate
a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 (c)(2);
Fed. R. App. P. 22. The applicable portions of § 2253 state:
(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an
appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from –
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention
complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which
specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c).
The Supreme Court has explained this standard, stating that “[w]here the district court
has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c)
is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). See also Tillman v. Cook, 215 F.3d 1116, 1120 (10th
Cir. 2000).
Obviously the petitioner need not show that he should prevail on the merits.
He has already failed in that endeavor. Rather, he must demonstrate that the
issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the
issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)(citations omitted).
Consistent with our prior precedent and the text of the habeas corpus statute,
we reiterate that a prisoner seeking a COA need only demonstrate “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 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003).
In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, both of Petitioner’s grounds for relief were
reviewed and the Court found that neither merited or warranted habeas relief. Based upon
this Court’s review, and based upon the rationale and the reasons stated in the Memorandum

Opinion and Order, the Court finds that none of these issues are debatable among jurists of
reason; no court could resolve the issues in a different manner; and the questions presented
in those grounds for relief are not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n. 4.
Therefore, the Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability as to all grounds for relief
contained in Petitioner’s Petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2012.