Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02149/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02149-2/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

QUIN DENVIR, Bar No. 49374

Federal Defender

ALLISON CLAIRE, Bar No. 170138

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, Third Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys for Defendant

GREGORY K. TOLBERT 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY K. TOLBERT, 

Petitioner,

v.

CHERYL PLILER,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CIV S-99-2149 LKK GGH P

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Under authority of Title 28 United States Code section

2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1), the Court

hereby certifies that there is cause for an appeal in the aboveentitled case. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is hereby

granted as to the following issues:

1. Whether habeas relief should be granted on grounds that

trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, in violation of the

Sixth Amendment, by failing to obtain severance of counts and by

improperly impairing petitioner’s right to a speedy trial?

2. Whether habeas relief should be granted on grounds that

petitioner’s federal constitutional right to a speedy trial was

violated?

Case 2:99-cv-02149-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Tolbert v. Pliler, CIV 99-2149

Certificate of Appealability 2

3. Whether habeas relief should be granted on grounds that

petitioner’s due process rights violated by the following evidentiary

errors, individually and/or cumulatively: (a) admission of evidence

that petitioner disposed of jewelry unconnected to the crime, (b)

improper reference by a witness to petitioner’s criminal history, (c)

admission of fingerprint evidence, and (d) improper identification

testimony based on observation of petitioner’s tattoos.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

HON. LAWRENCE K. KARLTON 

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:99-cv-02149-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2