Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02460/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02460-0/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

 “Dkt.” refers to documents in this Court’s file.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Theodore Washington, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-95-2460-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

In orders filed August 9 and October 19, 1999, the Court found some of Petitioner’s

claims for habeas relief to be procedurally barred. (Dkts. 64, 73.)1

 On April 22, 2005,

following additional briefing on the merits of Petitioner’s remaining claims, the Court denied

relief on those claims and judgment was entered. (Dkts. 115, 116.) On June 8, 2005, the

Court denied a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 118.) Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal

on July 11, 2005. (Dkt. 120.) Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for a

Certificate of Appealability. (Dkt. 121.) Respondents have not opposed the motion.

Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability will be granted to the extent set forth

herein.

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 2:95-cv-02460-JAT Document 122 Filed 09/30/05 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 the resolution of the following

issues: (A) whether the exhausted portion of Claim 3, alleging the trial court’s refusal to

sever Petitioner’s trial from that of his co-defendants and its subsequent admission of hearsay

evidence in violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment,

was wrongly decided; (B) whether Claim 8-B, alleging a violation of the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments by the Arizona courts’ expansion of the narrowing construction

given to A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) as applied to Petitioner, was wrongly decided on the merits;

and (C) whether Claim 11, alleging trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing

by failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence in violation of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments, was wrongly decided on the merits. The Court therefore will grant

a COA as to those issues. The Court denies a COA as to all other issues for the reasons set

forth in its Orders of August 9 and October 19, 1999, and April 22, 2005, in which the Court

addressed Petitioner’s arguments regarding exhaustion, procedural default, cause and

prejudice, and the merits. (Dkts. 64, 73, 115.) 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (dkt. 121)

is GRANTED IN PART as to the following issues:

Whether the exhausted portion of Claim 3, alleging the trial court’s refusal to

sever Petitioner’s trial from that of his co-defendants and its subsequent

admission of hearsay evidence in violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process

Case 2:95-cv-02460-JAT Document 122 Filed 09/30/05 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 -

under the Fourteenth Amendment, was wrongly decided on the merits;

Whether Claim 8-B, alleging a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments by the Arizona courts’ expansion of the narrowing construction

given to A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) as applied to Petitioner, was wrongly decided

on the merits; and 

Whether the exhausted portion of Claim 11, alleging trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to investigate and present

mitigation evidence in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, was

wrongly decided on the merits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability

is otherwise DENIED. (Dkt. 121.)

DATED this 28th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:95-cv-02460-JAT Document 122 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3