Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05378/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05378-2/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

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 GRANTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—No. C-02-05378 RMW

MAG

E-FILED on 5/19/08 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAUL NARVIOS,

Petitioner,

v.

A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent.

No. C-02-05378 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S

APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Re Docket Nos. 31, 32]

Petitioner, a state prisoner convicted of nineteen counts under California Penal Code §§ 288,

288a, 288.5 and 289 for sexual acts committed with his girlfriend's 10-year-old daughter, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus in this court on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of

petitioner's Constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause. On September 7, 2006, the court

denied the petition, but deferred ruling on the Confrontation Clause claim until the disposition of

Worton v. Bockting by the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court's ruling, petitioner informed this

court that he would not further pursue his petition and asked the court to enter final judgment. The court

entered final judgment on March 26, 2008. 

On April 25, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and on May 13, 2008 he submitted an

application for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner asks for a certificate of appealability for the

following issues, both related to the admission of the out-of-court statements of the then-10-year-old

Case 5:02-cv-05378-RMW Document 33 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 4
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 GRANTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—No. C-02-05378 RMW

MAG 2

victim, who did not testify at trial: (1) that petitioner was deprived of his rights under the Confrontation

Clause because the court did not attempt to compel the testimony of the victim and instead found that

she was "unavailable as a witness" based on her refusal to testify; and (2) that the requirements of a state

statute creating a hearsay exception were not met because the victim was neither unavailable, nor were

her statements sufficiently reliable. The court hereby grants petitioner's application for a certificate of

appealability on these two issues. 

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. Id. § 2253(c)(3). Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request

for a certificate of appealability, the 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) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)). 

Section 2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the 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." Id. at 893 n.4 (citations and internal quotations omitted;

emphasis in original); see Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 432 (1991) (reversing Ninth Circuit's denial

of certificate of probable cause on claim of denial of right to direct appeal despite petitioner's deficient

showing of prejudice; issue could have been resolved differently where other circuits presumed

prejudice in such a situation). 

In light of the foregoing standard, the court finds that the issues raised in petitioner's application

merit a certificate of appealability. Although the court is confident that its conclusions set forth in its

September 7, 2006 order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus were the correct ones, the issues

of whether the victim was unavailable and whether the hearsay exception was applicable are debatable

among jurists of reason. Accordingly, the court hereby grants petitioner's application for a certificate

of appealability. 

Case 5:02-cv-05378-RMW Document 33 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 4
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 GRANTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—No. C-02-05378 RMW

MAG 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/18/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-05378-RMW Document 33 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 4
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 GRANTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY—No. C-02-05378 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Richard Such jsuch@comcast.net 

Counsel for Respondent

Catherine Amy Rivlin catherine.rivlin@doj.ca.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 5/19/08 /s/ MAG 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:02-cv-05378-RMW Document 33 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 4