Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-02244/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-02244-8/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Lynn Styers, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-2244-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER ON CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability from the order

denying his motion to enter judgment in this habeas corpus action. 

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

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)). 

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether, in correcting the

constitutional error in his sentence, the state court was obligated to provide Petitioner with

Case 2:98-cv-02244-JAT Document 177 Filed 09/11/12 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 - 2 -

a new sentencing proceeding before a jury. Therefore, the Court will grant a COA on that

issue. For the reasons stated in the Court’s order of July 26, 2012, the Court denies a COA

on the other issues requested by Petitioner in his motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 175)

is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether, in

correcting the constitutional error in his sentence, the state court was obligated to provide

Petitioner with a new sentencing proceeding before a jury. 

DATED this 10th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:98-cv-02244-JAT Document 177 Filed 09/11/12 Page 2 of 2