Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-00146/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-00146-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

 Dora Schriro, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, is substituted

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Wayne Cook, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,1

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-97-146-PHX-RCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

The Court has denied Petitioner Daniel Wayne Cook’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. In the event Petitioner appeals from this Court’s judgment, in the interests of

conserving scarce Criminal Justice Act funds that might be consumed drafting an application

for a certificate of appealability to this Court, the Court on its own initiative has evaluated

the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not

issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be

Case 2:97-cv-00146-RCB Document 92 Filed 03/29/06 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

established by demonstrating 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 were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For

procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s

procedural ruling was correct. Id.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate its resolution of the issues set

forth in Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10, and its procedural rulings with respect to Claims 17-20. The

Court therefore grants a certificate of appealability as to these issues. For the reasons stated

in the Court’s Memorandum of Decision and Order filed simultaneously on this date as well

as the Order regarding the procedural status of Petitioner’s claims filed on September 17,

1999 (dkt. 39), the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability for Petitioner’s

remaining claims and procedural issues.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court grants a Certificate of Appealability as

to the following issues:

Whether Claim 1, alleging that Petitioner’s request to represent himself at trial

because he was not receiving competent representation from his courtappointed lawyer was not a knowing, voluntary, informed waiver of his Sixth

Amendment right to the assistance of effective counsel, fails on the merits;

Whether Claim 2, alleging that Petitioner’s decision to waive his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary

because at the time he made the decision he was suffering from mental

problems that rendered him incompetent, fails on the merits;

Whether Claim 6, alleging that Petitioner was denied his due process right to

a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment because the testimony of John

Matzke was coerced by an unconstitutional plea agreement between Matzke

and the State, fails on the merits;

Whether Claim 10, alleging that the prosecutor’s comments during closing

argument, including allusions to Petitioner’s failure to explain where he was

at the time of the murders and the fact that Petitioner was the only person in

the courtroom who could explain what had happened, violated Petitioner’s

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to remain silent and not testify on his

own behalf, fails on the merits;

Case 2:97-cv-00146-RCB Document 92 Filed 03/29/06 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

Whether Claim 17, alleging that Petitioner’s Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to due process and reliable capital sentencing procedures

were violated by the failure to disqualify the trial judge, is procedurally barred;

Whether Claims 18, 19, and 20, alleging that the trial court violated the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendment when it found the pecuniary gain and cruel,

heinous, or depraved aggravating circumstances, are procedurally barred.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:97-cv-00146-RCB Document 92 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3