Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-21081/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-21081-2/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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—C-01-21081 RMW

E-FILED ON 12/11/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SERGIO PONCE,

Petitioner,

v.

SILVIA GARCIA, Warden, Calipatria State

Prison, THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden,

California State Prison, Solano,

Respondents.

No. C-01-21081 RMW

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Re Docket No. 28]

Sergio Ponce, who is in the custody of the State of California pursuant to his conviction for

first-degree murder, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 7,

2006 the court denied the petition on the merits and entered judgment in favor of respondents. On

October 5, 2006, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of

appealability. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the application.

DISCUSSION

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first

obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of probable cause to appeal). 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability

"only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28

Case 5:01-cv-21081-RMW Document 32 Filed 12/11/06 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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—C-01-21081 RMW

2

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See

§ 2253(c)(3). 

"Where a 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, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Except for substituting "constitutional" for "federal," section 2253(c)(2) codified the standard

announced by the Supreme Court in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). Slack, 120 S.

Ct. at 1603. In Barefoot, the court explained that "a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal

right" means that a petitioner "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, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4 (citations and

internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts about whether the Barefoot standard

has been met must be resolved in petitioner's favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25

(9th Cir. 2000).

Ponce requests a certificate of appealability as to the issue of whether the evidence against

him was sufficient to sustain his conviction for first-degree murder. Given that to succeed on this

claim Ponce must show that no rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979), Ponce's claim is not one that is

reasonably debatable. Ponce is therefore not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

ORDER

Ponce's application for a certificate of appealability is denied. The clerk shall forward this

order, along with the case file, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from

which petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability.) United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268,

1270 (9th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

 

DATED: 12/11/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cv-21081-RMW Document 32 Filed 12/11/06 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 1

 The court is aware that the attorney primarily responsible for representing respondents was

elevated to the Alameda County Superior Court over a year ago.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—C-01-21081 RMW

3

Notice of this document was electronically sent on 12/11/06 to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Colleen M. Rohan crohan@attglobal.net 

Counsel for Defendants:

Morris Beatus1 morris.beatus@doj.ca.gov 

A copy of this order was also mailed on to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Colleen M. Rohan

1442A Walnut Street, P.M.B. No. 45

Berkeley, CA 94709

Petitioner:

Sergio Ponce, P-13400

CSP-Solano, 12-215

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000

Counsel for Respondent:

Bill Lockyer; Robert R. Anderson; Gerald A. Engler; Gregory A. Ott; Peggy Ruffra

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:01-cv-21081-RMW Document 32 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3