Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02572/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02572-2/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

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HARMON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE KNOWLES,

Respondent.

 No. CV-06-2572-FVS 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

THIS MATTER comes before the Court based upon petitioner's motion

for a Certificate of Appealability. For the reasons set forth below,

his motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Richard Harmon, Jr., was convicted of second degree murder,

robbery, and arson in San Joaquin County Superior Court in the State

of California. He appealed the judgment of conviction. The state

Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and the state Supreme Court

denied review. Mr. Harmon filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in state Superior Court. He raised two issues he had not

raised during the course of his direct appeal. For one thing, he

argued the trial judge improperly refused to excuse a juror. For

another thing, he argued the judge improperly admitted statements he

Case 2:06-cv-02572-FVS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 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

ORDER - 2

made to a law enforcement officer in response to custodial

interrogation. Since Mr. Harmon had raised these issues for the first

time in a state habeas petition, neither the Superior Court, nor the

Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court would consider them. As a

result, Mr. Harmon turned to federal court; filing a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asserted

issues the California courts had refused to consider as a result of

his failure to comply with state procedural rules. This Court denied

habeas relief on the ground he had defaulted his federal claims in

state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural

rule. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115

L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Mr. Harmon now seeks a certificate of

appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

STANDARD

Mr. Harmon must demonstrate “‘reasonable jurists would find [this

Court's] assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d

931 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct.

1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). This is a lenient standard. Hayward

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 553 (9th Cir.2010)(en banc). In order to

satisfy it, Mr. Harmon must show "something more than the absence of

frivolity, but something less than a merits determination[.]" Id.

(internal punctuation and citations omitted).

Case 2:06-cv-02572-FVS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 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

ORDER - 3

RULING

Mr. Harmon does not appear to deny he raised the disputed issues

for the first time in his state habeas petition and, by doing so,

violated a state procedural rule. These combined circumstances create

a substantial obstacle to federal habeas relief. "A federal claim

that is defaulted in state court pursuant to an adequate and

independent procedural bar may not be considered in federal court

unless the petitioner demonstrates cause and prejudice for the

default, or shows that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would

result if the federal court refused to consider the claim." Cassett

v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 621 n.5 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Coleman, 501

U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546). Mr. Harmon has not attempted to

establish cause and prejudice. Thus, he is entitled to a COA only if

a reasonable jurist could find this Court's failure to consider his

federal habeas claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of

justice. In Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1028 (9th Cir.2008), the

Ninth Circuit explained:

To qualify for the "fundamental miscarriage of justice"

exception to the procedural default rule . . ., [the

petitioner] must show that a constitutional violation has

“probably resulted” in the conviction when he was “actually

innocent” of the offense. Murray [v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,

496, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986).] “To be

credible, such a claim requires petitioner to support his

allegations of constitutional error with new reliable

evidence -- whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence,

Case 2:06-cv-02572-FVS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 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

ORDER - 4

trustworthy eye-witness accounts, or critical physical

evidence -- that was not presented at trial.” Schlup [v.

Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808

(1995).]

Mr. Harmon has presented no evidence of actual innocence. That being

the case, a reasonable jurist would be unable to find he has satisfied

the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception to the procedural

default rule. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a COA.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Petitioner Richard Harmon’s motion for a certificate of

appealability (Ct. Rec. 16) is denied. The Court will not consider a

motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

directed to enter this order and furnish copies to the petitioner and

to counsel for the respondent.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2010.

 s/ Fred Van Sickle 

Fred Van Sickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02572-FVS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 Page 4 of 4