Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01028/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01028-2/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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-01028 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 1/30/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL JOHN YANCEY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director of the

California Department of Corrections, et al.,

 Respondents.

Case Number C 05-01028 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Docket No. 11]

On March 11, 2005, Petitioner Michael John Yancey filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 8, 2001, Petitioner was found guilty in Santa

Clara Superior Court of first degree murder and sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in state

prison. He brings the following claims, all of which have been exhausted in state court: (1) “At

trial, petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine his co-defendant, whose accusatory

statement to police was revealed to the jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment,” (2) “At trial,

the prosecutor unconstitutionally argued that petitioner was guilty because his co-defendant

Case 5:05-cv-01028-JF Document 13 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01028 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

refused to testify,” (3) “The trial court’s insistence on trying petitioner along with his

co-defendant was fundamentally unfair and violated the Due Process Clause,” (4) “At trial, the

prosecutor unconstitutionally impeached petitioner’s testimony with the fact that petitioner

invoked his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), not to speak to police

investigators, in violation of the Due Process Clause,” (5) “At trial, the prosecutor

unconstitutionally presented statements elicited from petitioner in violation of his rights under

the Due Process Clause and Miranda, supra, among others,” and (6) “The trial court incorrectly

instructed the jury that reasonable doubt is ‘what you feel in your conscience,’ in violation of

petitioner’s due process rights.”

On January 19, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant motion for appointment of counsel,

seeking appointment of Dennis P. Riordan (“Riordan”), effective of December 23, 2003, the

date that the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review. The Sixth

Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith,

791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a district court may appoint counsel to represent

any financially eligible habeas petitioner whenever it “determines that the interests of justice so

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. In its discretion, this

Court concludes that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel in the instant

habeas corpus action. Petitioner’s claims are legally complicated and potentially meritorious.

A petitioner is financially eligible for the appointment of counsel if he or she is

“financially unable to obtain adequate representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a). Unless the

circumstances of the particular case require appointment to afford due process of law, only

indigent petitioners qualify for court appointed counsel. Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782

(9th Cir. 1965). Petitioner has submitted a financial affidavit showing that he has no resources

and that it has been at least ten years since he has been employed.

Accordingly, the Court will grant petitioner’s motion for the appointment of Riordan as

his counsel for purposes of the instant habeas corpus action, effective December 23, 2003.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:05-cv-01028-JF Document 13 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01028 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

DATED: January 30, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01028-JF Document 13 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 05-01028 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Dorian Jung dorian.jung@doj.ca.gov, ECFCoordinator@doj.ca.gov;

DocketingSFAWT@doj.ca.gov; cherryl.crisostomo@doj.ca.gov;

delia.desuyo@doj.ca.gov; maricris.argarin@doj.ca.gov

Dennis P. Riordan dennis@Riordan-Horgan.com

Donald M. Horgan

523 Octavia Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case 5:05-cv-01028-JF Document 13 Filed 01/30/06 Page 4 of 4