Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_96-cv-00669/USCOURTS-azd-2_96-cv-00669-0/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

 “Dkt.” refers to documents in this Court’s file.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fred Lawrence Robinson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-96-0669-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

In an order filed August 9, 1999, the Court found some of Petitioner’s claims for

habeas relief to be procedurally barred. (Dkt. 40.)1

 On March 21, 2005, following additional

briefing on the merits of Petitioner’s remaining claims, the Court denied relief on those

claims and judgment was entered. (Dkts. 60, 61.) On May 12, 2005, the Court denied a

motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 63.) Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on June 9, 2005.

(Dkt. 64.) Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of Appealability.

(Dkt. 65.) Respondents have not opposed the request. Petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability will be granted to the extent set forth herein.

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 2:96-cv-00669-JAT Document 67 Filed 09/30/05 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 jurists of reason could debate the resolution of the following

issues: (A) whether Claim 6(a) is procedurally barred; (B) whether Claim 6(b) and (c) were

wrongly decided on the merits; and (C) whether Claim 8 was wrongly denied on the merits.

The Court therefore grants a COA as to those issues. The Court denies a COA as to all other

issues for the reasons set forth in its Orders of August 9, 1999, and March 21, 2005, in which

the Court addressed Petitioner’s arguments regarding exhaustion, procedural default, cause

and prejudice, and the merits. (Dkts. 40, 60.) 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Certificate of Appealability (dkt. 65)

is GRANTED IN PART as to the following issues:

Whether Claim 6(a), alleging that the especial cruelty finding was arbitrary in

violation of Petitioner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because

there was insufficient evidence that he intended or reasonably foresaw the

victim’s suffering, is procedurally barred;

Whether Claim 6(b), alleging that the especially depraved finding was

arbitrary in violation of Petitioner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

because insufficient evidence supported it, fails on the merits; 

Whether Claim 6(c), alleging a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments by the Arizona courts expansion of the narrowing construction

given to the especially depraved prong in A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) as applied to

Petitioner, was wrongly decided on the merits; and 

Whether Claim 8, alleging that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of

counsel at sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence

in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, was wrongly decided

on the merits.

Case 2:96-cv-00669-JAT Document 67 Filed 09/30/05 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability

is otherwise DENIED. (Dkt. 65.)

DATED this 28th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:96-cv-00669-JAT Document 67 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3