Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01458/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01458-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL W. BRISENO,

Petitioner, No. C 04-1458 PJH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART 

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director, 

California Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner. On

September 17, 2007, this court denied Briseno’s petition on the merits. Before the court is

Briseno’s notice of appeal, which this court also construes as a request for a certificate of

appealability (“COA”).

To obtain a COA, Briseno must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is

straightforward. “The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Section 2253(c)(3) requires a court granting a

COA to indicate which issues satisfy the COA standard. 

Here, the court finds that one of the four issues presented by Briseno in his petition

meet the above standard and accordingly GRANTS the COA as to that issue only. See

Case 4:04-cv-01458-PJH Document 42 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 2
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

generally Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). That issue is whether Briseno

was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights when

his trial counsel failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court, thus

precluding him from appealing certain issues.

Accordingly, the clerk shall forward the file, including a copy of this order, to the

Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01458-PJH Document 42 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2