Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00457/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00457-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv0457

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO RIVAS LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv0457-LAB (AJB)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

MACK JENKINS, Chief Probation Officer,

et al.,

Defendants.

Lopez filed a state habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 12, 2008.

Magistrate Judge Battaglia issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on October 15,

2008, recommending that the petition be denied. The Court adopted the R&R on

November 14, 2008. Now pending is Lopez’s Application for Certificate of Appealability

(“COA”), which a district or circuit judge must grant before he can appeal the denial of his

habeas petition to the Ninth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

A. Legal Standard

A COA is authorized “if the applicant has made 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, 327 (2003).

Case 3:08-cv-00457-LAB-AJB Document 24 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv0457

A petitioner doesn’t have to show that he should prevail on the merits. “He has already

failed in that endeavor.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). At the same time, the Court shouldn’t

issue a COA as a matter of course. A petitioner “must prove ‘something more than the

absence of frivolity’ or the existence of mere ‘good faith’ on his or her part.” Miller-El, 537

U.S. at 337–38 (citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893).

B. Discussion

Lopez was convicted of: possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana for

sale; possessing ketamine; possessing paraphernalia used for narcotics; and unauthorized

possession of a hypodermic needle or syringe. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail as a

condition of five years of probation. 

His habeas petition consists of two ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The first

is that his lawyer failed to pursue an “upward plea” to a greater but non-aggravated offense

in order to avoid the adverse immigration consequences of his criminal convictions, which

were aggravated felonies under federal immigration law. The second is that his lawyer failed

to locate witnesses (friends of his) who would have testified the drugs Lopez was convicted

of possessing did not belong to him, and that he is not a drug dealer. Lopez argued that the

California Court of Appeals’ rejection of each of these claims was contrary to clearly

established federal law and based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). 

The Court rejected the first claim, like the California Court of Appeal, because Lopez’s

prosecutors testified unequivocally that an upward plea would not have been accepted in his

case in order to preserve his immigration status. The Court rejected the second claim

because it found the testimony of Lopez’s friends to lack any specific, exculpatory

information. None said the drugs found in Lopez’s home belonged to them, or to someone

other than Lopez. They merely said, as a general matter, they had no knowledge of Lopez

ever selling drugs and that it was common for other people to leave drugs in Lopez’s home.

//

Case 3:08-cv-00457-LAB-AJB Document 24 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 08cv0457

Although the Court sees no Strickland violation in the conduct of Lopez’s trial counsel,

reasonable jurists may see it differently. Despite the sworn testimony of Lopez’s prosecutors

that they would not have offered a different plea bargain, some judge could conceivably

credit the testimony of Lopez’s trial counsel that he could have negotiated an upward plea

on his client’s behalf. Similarly, even if the decision below was not contrary to clearly

established federal law or an objectively unreasonable interpretation of the facts, some judge

may be inclined to grant Lopez’s request (which the Court denied) for an evidentiary hearing

before reaching the same conclusions as the Court. Lopez’s Application is therefore

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00457-LAB-AJB Document 24 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 3