Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01881/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01881-1/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

Laurence K. Libberton, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,1

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-97-1881-PHX-EHC

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

The Court has denied petitioner Laurence K. Libberton’s amended 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

Case 2:97-cv-01881-EHC Document 97 Filed 09/21/07 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

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

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 its resolution of the issues set forth

in Claims 1, 2, 19a and 19c. 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 July 17, 2000, (Dkt. 45), 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 the State failed to disclose the leniency promise to

accomplice Martin Norton in return for his testimony against Petitioner, fails

on the merits;

Whether Claim 2, alleging the State failed to correct Norton’s false testimony

denying he was promised leniency in return for his testimony against

Petitioner, fails on the merits;

Whether Claim 19a, alleging counsel rendered ineffective assistance at

sentencing by failing to investigate available mitigation, in particular failing

to present Petitioner’s mother, sister and a childhood friend to testify

concerning his problem relationship with his father, his unstable childhood,

history of substance abuse and his inability to commit the crimes at issue on

his own, fails on the merits; and

Whether Claim 19c, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to

 present mitigating psychiatric evidence, fails on the merits. 

Case 2:97-cv-01881-EHC Document 97 Filed 09/21/07 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

DATED this 17th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:97-cv-01881-EHC Document 97 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3