Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00233-5/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

6-cv-233-WQH-RBM

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PENTON,

Petitioner,

v.

A. MALFI,

Respondent.

Case No.: 6-cv-233-WQH-RBM

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Certificate of Appealability filed by 

Petitioner Anthony Penton. (ECF No. 79).

I. BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). On October 2, 2006, Petitioner 

filed an Amended Petition against Respondent A. Malfi. (ECF No. 21). On August 31, 

2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the 

Court deny Petitioner’s Amended Petition. (ECF No. 36). The Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the Court deny the claims that a new trial should have been granted 

under the Due Process Clause and the right to confrontation. The Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s claims that California’s Three Strikes law is 

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 83 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

6-cv-233-WQH-RBM

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

an ex post facto law and is void for vagueness. The Magistrate Judge recommended that 

the Court deny Petitioner’s claims of insufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Magistrate Judge 

further recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s claim that the trial judge imposed 

“upper terms for his sentence based upon facts that were neither found by the jury nor 

admitted by Petitioner.” (Id. at 25). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were 

filed. On December 20, 2007, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its 

entirety and entered judgment in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner.

On May 18, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to 

Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 53). On August 28, 2018, 

the Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 61). The Court 

vacated the Judgment and the portions of the December 20, 2007, Order adopting the 

Report and Recommendation and denying the Amended Petition. The Court granted leave 

to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

On November 26, 2018, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 66). On April 19, 2019, Respondent filed a Response to 

Petitioner’s Objections. (ECF No. 70). On June 17, 2019, Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF 

No. 76). On September 12, 2019, the Court issued an Order adopting all portions of the 

Report and Recommendation except the section entitled “DEPRIVATION OF JURY 

TRIAL IN SENTENCING,” page 25, line 1, through page 31, line 20, and denied 

Petitioner’s Amended Petition. (ECF No. 77). The Court held that: 

the determination of the trial judge that ‘Defendant’s prior convictions are 

numerous and of increasing seriousness’ and the decision to impose an upper 

term sentence in this case is consistent with the holding in [People v. Black, 

41 Cal. 4th 799 (2007)] and was not an ‘unreasonable application’ of ‘clearly 

established’ federal law. Petitioner is not entitled to relief under [28 U.S.C.] §

2254(d)(1).

(ECF No. 77 at 7). 

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 83 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

6-cv-233-WQH-RBM

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

On October 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF 

No. 79) and a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 80). On November 15, 2019, the Court of 

Appeals issued an Order stating:

The district court has not issued or declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability in this appeal, which appears to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

This case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting 

or denying a certificate of appealability at the court’s earliest convenience. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 

F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should 

specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. Under Asrar, if the district court declines 

to issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of 

appealability should not be granted, and the Clerk of the district court shall 

forward to this court the record with the order denying the certificate. See 

Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270.

(ECF No. 82 at 1-2).

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that the Court should certify the following issues for appeal: 1) 

whether Petitioner’s sentence was unconstitutionally increased under California’s 

Determinate Sentencing Law; 2) whether Petitioner’s constitutional rights to due process 

and a fair trial were violated at trial by the prosecutor’s suppression of favorable evidence; 

3) whether the trial court unconstitutionally excluded evidence favorable to Petitioner; 4) 

whether the trial court violated Petitioner’s constitutional right to confrontation; 5) whether 

Petitioner should have been allowed to challenge his prior conviction at sentencing; 6) 

whether petitioner’s appellate counsel was ineffective; and 7) whether the alleged 

constitutional violations cumulatively prejudiced Petitioner. (ECF No. 79-1 at 8). 

Petitioner contends that “reasonable jurists could disagree with the Court’s resolution” of 

these issues. (Id.).

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 

appeal from a final order in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); 

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 83 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

6-cv-233-WQH-RBM

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

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

“[T]he district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for 

issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted.” United 

States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate should issue where the 

prisoner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a 

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Upon review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that issues Petitioner 

requests this Court certify for appeal, as raised in Petitioner’s Amended Petition, are nonfrivolous and debatable among reasonable jurists. Although the Court denied Petitioner’s 

Amended Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner raised colorable constitutional arguments.

Pursuant to the Order of the Court of Appeals, this Court grants a certificate of appealability 

as to the following claims: 1) Petitioner’s sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced under 

California’s Determinate Sentencing Law; 2) the prosecutor violated Petitioner’s rights to 

due process and a fair trial by suppressing the Spear Report and the Good Report; 3) the 

trial court violated Petitioner’s due process rights by excluding evidence favorable to 

Petitioner; 4) the trial court violated Petitioner’s right to confrontation at the hearing on his 

motion for new trial; 5) the trial court should have allowed Petitioner to challenge his prior 

conviction at sentencing; 6) Petitioner’s appellate counsel was ineffective; and 7) the 

constitutional violations that occurred during Petitioner’s trial, sentencing, and appellate 

proceedings cumulatively prejudiced Petitioner.

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 83 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

6-cv-233-WQH-RBM

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

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF 

No. 79) is GRANTED.

Dated: December 4, 2019

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 83 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5