Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03557/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03557-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SINGLETON,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and DEE ADAMS, Warden,

Corcoran State Prison,

Respondents. /

No. C 05-03557 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner Kenneth Singleton has filed a notice of appeal and a petition for certificate of

appealability. His petition presented questions that deserve further attention, at least after all

doubts are resolved in petitioner’s favor. The Court therefore ISSUES A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement following a

jury trial in Alameda County Superior Court. Petitioner fatally shot the victim about two hours

after they had a fistfight. Petitioner was seventeen at the time and eighteen when arrested (Pet.

at 2–4). On the day of his arrest, petitioner was put in an interview room at 10 a.m. 

Interviewers read petitioner his Miranda rights at around noon, when he invoked his right to

counsel. The interviewers started to leave the room, but stopped when petitioner told them that

Case 3:05-cv-03557-WHA Document 28 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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

he wanted to talk. This first interview lasted less than twenty minutes. Petitioner was then

interviewed on-and-off throughout the day without further advisement of his rights. At one

point, petitioner asked to speak to his mother. He was allowed to call her, but the conversation

was secretly taped and monitored by detectives. Eventually, petitioner gave a taped confession

at ten that evening (Pet., App. A at 1–5).

Petitioner was found mentally incompetent to stand trial in August 2000. In April 2002,

he was found competent. The judge ruled that the confession could not be used in the

prosecution’s case-in-chief because it was taken in violation of petitioner’s right to counsel. It

held, however, that the statement could be used for impeachment because it was not coerced

(Exh. 6-A at 184–88). Petitioner testified and was impeached with his taped confession. He

was subsequently convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement. The court

imposed the statutory mandatory sentence of fifty years to life. 

When a petitioner files a notice of appeal, the district judge who considered his petition

must either certify his appeal or state why a certificate should not issue. FRAP Rule 22(b)(1). 

Without such a certificate, the petitioner cannot pursue his challenge. A district court may grant

a certificate “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Such a showing is made 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.” Any doubt is resolved in the petitioner’s favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220

F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (brackets in original). 

Petitioner argued that his confession should have been deemed coerced, and should not

have been used for impeachment. He asserted that its use prejudiced his defense. He also

argued that his sentence was so disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

The question before the Court now is whether petitioner made a substantial showing that the

state did not afford him his constitutional rights. This order holds that he did. His interrogation

was flawed and there are serious questions about petitioner’s mental capacity at the time. For

those reasons, whether or not the trial court should have admitted the interrogation as

Case 3:05-cv-03557-WHA Document 28 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

impeachment evidence is a question that deserves to proceed further. Lambright, 220 F.3d at

1025. The sentencing proceedings were truncated, perhaps because of the trial judge’s

erroneous belief that there was no discretion to reduce the sentence even if it otherwise would

be constitutionally disproportionate. The court stated its desire to sentence petitioner to less

prison time. Because of these facts, the sentencing issue also is “adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Ibid. In his petition, Mr. Singleton contended that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel. He does not ask for a certificate of appealability on

that issue. The certificate of appealability therefore does not cover that issue. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the request for a certificate of appealability on the two

issues of evidentiary error and disproportionate sentencing is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03557-WHA Document 28 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 3