Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04702/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04702-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMAD J. ABDULRAFI,

Petitioner,

 v.

BILL LOCKYER,

Respondent. /

No. C 02-04702 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Mohammad J. Abdulrafi requests a certificate of appealability so that he may

challenge before the Court of Appeals this Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. Because Abdulrafi made a substantial showing that he was denied effective assistance

of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, his request is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Mr. Abdulrafi was convicted in 1997 in state court of lewd and lascivious acts on a child

in violation of Penal Code Section 288(a). He has served his eight-year prison term. The

United States deported him to Pakistan because of his conviction. His petition is not moot,

despite his release, because of the disabilities (such as exclusion from the United States) that

endure due to the conviction. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968).

Petitioner first asked this Court for a writ of habeas corpus on September 27, 2002. That

petition was denied March 5, 2005. Mr. Abdulrafi appealed. The Court of Appeals granted his

motion to supplement the record and remanded the case for consideration of the additional
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

evidence. After a hearing, this Court denied Mr. Abdulrafi’s petition again on September 6. 

Judgment was entered against him and in favor of respondent.

ANALYSIS

A district court may grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The

certificate is granted if the petitioner demonstrates “that the issues are debatable among jurists

of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022,

1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Any doubt is resolved in the petitioner’s favor. Ibid.

Mr. Abdulrafi argues that a reasonable jurist could find that he was denied effective

assistance of counsel when his attorney turned over defense reports to the state. Representation

is deficient constitutionally if it is objectively unreasonable, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687–88 (1984), and when the lawyer’s action or inaction hurts the defendant, id. at 692. 

The reports were used by the prosecutor at Mr. Abdulrafi’s trial. 

Petitioner argues that giving the reports to the prosecutor was unreasonable. He

concedes that it might be reasonable, for instance to forestall objections to use of the reports at

trial. Petitioner claims that if this were a reasonable strategy, the defense would have turned

over all such reports. Defense counsel did not turn them all over. Petitioner also argues that, if

it were reasonable, the defense would have turned over only reports about witnesses who were

to be called at trial. Defense counsel turned over at least one report for a witness who did not

testify at trial. This Court found that there was insufficient evidence to find that defense

counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Petitioner’s

argument, however, may persuade other reasonable jurists. The Court therefore grants a

certificate of appealability as to whether defense counsel’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness when he turned over the reports about the three witnesses,

Jasmyn (petitioner’s daughter), Candyce and Charmaen.

Petitioner also contends that a reasonable jurist could find that the prosecutor’s use of

the defense reports hurt Mr. Abdulrafi’s defense.
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

3

Prosecutor Javier Alcala questioned Jasmyn about inconsistencies between her

testimony and statements she had made to a defense investigator. Petitioner argues that the

questioning cast doubt on her credibility, undermining potentially beneficial testimony. Mr.

Abdulrafi argues this caused him prejudice. This Court found that there was insufficient

evidence to find that petitioner was prejudiced by the prosecution’s use of the report because no

witness contradicted Jasmyn’s testimony. However, a reasonable jurist conceivably could think

Mr. Abdulrafi was hurt by the prosecutor’s use of the report. The Court therefore grants a

certificate of appealability as to whether petitioner was prejudiced by the prosecution’s use of

the report.

Next, petitioner contends that use of the reports about Candyce and Charmaen

prejudiced his case. Mr. Abdulrafi argues that Alcala used the reports to improve his

questioning, in part by letting him know additional facts damaging to the defense. This Court

found that there was insufficient evidence to find that petitioner was prejudiced by the

prosecution’s use of the reports about Candyce and Charmaen. A reasonable jurist, however,

conceivably could disagree. The Court therefore grants a certificate of appealability as to

whether petitioner was prejudiced by the use of the reports about Candyce and Charmaen.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, this Court finds that a reasonable jurist conceivably could have

determined the constitutional issues in Mr. Abdulrafi’s favor. This Court therefore GRANTS

petitioner a certificate of appealability, limited to the specific issues described above. The Clerk

shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

123456789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\WHAALL\2002Civ\02-04702 Abdulrafi\COAOrder.wpd

4