Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04144/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04144-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD STEWART,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-04144 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Richard Stewart has filed a notice of appeal and an application for certificate

of appealability. His petition presented questions that deserve further attention, at least after all

doubts are resolved in petitioner’s favor. The Court therefore ISSUES A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY. 

When a petitioner files a notice of appeal, the district judge who considered his petition

must either certify his appeal or state why a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. Proc.

22(b)(1). Without such a certificate, the petitioner cannot pursue his challenge. A district court

may grant a certificate “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Such a showing is made if the petitioner

demonstrates “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.” Any doubt is resolved in the petitioner’s favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220

Case 3:05-cv-04144-WHA Document 39 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court has noted, “a claim

can be debatable even though every jurist of reason might agree, after the [certificate of

appealability] has been granted and the case has received full consideration, that petitioner will

not prevail. . . . The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a “modest

standard” that must be met when determining whether to grant a certificate of appealability. 

Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197, 1202 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Given this standard, the Court certifies the following issues for appeal:

1. Whether the trial court violated petitioner’s constitutional

rights to due process and a fair trial by refusing to instruct

the jury that the prosecution could have provided immunity

to Maurice Solvang;

2. Whether trial counsel’s failure to present evidence which

may have suggested that Solvang may have been the killer

deprived petitioner of his constitutional right to effective

assistance of counsel; and

3. Whether there was any conflict of interest in the

representation of petitioner, Solvang, and Terry Guillory by

the public defender’s office.

These are the only issues for which petitioner has sought a certificate. The Clerk of the

Court shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04144-WHA Document 39 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2