Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05384/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05384-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROOSEVELT FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 02-05384 SI

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Roosevelt Franklin filed a petition for writ ofhabeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

which was denied on the merits by order filed September 14, 2005. Petitioner now seeks a certificate of

appealability pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 22( b), on the following issues: (1) whether his right to due process

was violated when the trial court applied “serious felony” enhancements based solely on this admission that he

had been previously convicted of offenses that were not per se “serious felonies”; (2) whether his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the application of sentencing enhancements based on facts

neither admitted by the defendant nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) whether his trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the application of sentencing enhancements under these

circumstances.

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). 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), to the

effect 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

(internal quotations omitted).
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

Although this Court ultimately rejected his claims, petitioner did demonstrate that the issues are

debatable, and accordingly this Court GRANTS a certificate of appealability on that the requested issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge