Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20407/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20407-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Certificate of Appealability

p:\pro-se\sj.jw\hc.01\trahan20407coa

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH TRAHAN,

Petitioner(s),

 v.

ARTHUR CALDERON,

Respondent(s). /

NO. C 01-20407 JW (PR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Joseph Trahan (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Santa Clara

County Superior Court of second-degree robbery, and under California’s three strikes law was

sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of twenty-five years to life, with a consecutive

determinate term of six years, for an aggregate term of thirty-one years to life. As grounds for

habeas relief, Petitioner asserted that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated, more

particularly: (1) his right to self-representation; (2) his right to effective assistance of counsel; (3) his

right to confront witnesses; and (4) his right to counsel and trial by jury.

On September 13, 2005, the Court denied the petition on the merits. On September 19, 2005,

the Court entered judgment. On October 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a request

for a certificate of appealability. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Petitioner’s

request for a certificate of appealability.

Case 5:01-cv-20407-JW Document 27 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Certificate of Appealability

p:\pro-se\sj.jw\hc.01\trahan20407coa 2

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). 

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 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 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, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section 2253(c)(2)

codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

880, 892-93 (1983). 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).

The Court denied the instant habeas petition after careful consideration of the merits. The

Court found no violation of Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights in the underlying state court

proceedings. First, Petitioner was not denied his right to represent himself. His motion was

considered untimely, having been brought the day of jury selection. The Supreme Court has not

clearly established when a Faretta request is untimely, and therefore the state court’s decision was

not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the

Supreme Court. Second, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was deprived ineffective assistance

Case 5:01-cv-20407-JW Document 27 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Certificate of Appealability

p:\pro-se\sj.jw\hc.01\trahan20407coa 3

of counsel. Rather, the record indicates that his counsel, Ms. Haye’s, performed ably, and well

above the constitutional requirements set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

Further, Petitioner’s third and fourth claims are plainly without merit. Petitioner has failed to

demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its

ruling. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is accordingly DENIED. 

The Clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. 

Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Dated: April __, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

18

Case 5:01-cv-20407-JW Document 27 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Certificate of Appealability

p:\pro-se\sj.jw\hc.01\trahan20407coa

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Gregory A. Ott

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Joseph Trahan

California State Prison-Solano

P. O. Box 4000

Vacaville, Ca 95696

Dated: April __, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

18

Case 5:01-cv-20407-JW Document 27 Filed 04/18/06 Page 4 of 4