Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00331/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00331-1/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)

---

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

- 1 - 08cv331

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO MICHAEL VITALE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08CV0331-JLS (WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 14)

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

On July 23, 2009, the Court entered an Order denying Antonio Michael Vitale’s

(“petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court’s Order resolved the three issues

raised by the petition. First, the Court found sufficient evidence to sustain petitioner’s convictions

for forcible rape and forcible oral copulation. Second, the Court found that plaintiff was not

entitled to a Mayberry instruction, concerning reasonable and good-faith belief in a person’s

consent to sex acts as a defense to forcible rape. Third, the Court found no clearly established

federal law concerning the admission of propensity evidence. 

As part of his Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. No. 13), petitioner requests a

certificate of appealability for each issue in his petition. A certificate of appealability is authorized

“if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2008). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason

Case 3:08-cv-00331-JLS-WMC Document 15 Filed 08/07/09 Page 1 of 3
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 - 08cv331

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The court must either grant the certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the

required showing or state why a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

The Court finds that a certificate of appealability could not issue here. On the first claim,

viewing the trial record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, jurists of reason could not

disagree about the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain petitioner’s convictions. As discussed in

the Court’s Order, the evidence of the victims’ lack of consent met the standard of California law. 

See People v. Iniguez, 7 Cal. 4th 847, 856-57 (Cal. 1994). Also, given the state of the evidence,

jurists could not conclude that the issue deserves encouragement to proceed further.

On the second claim, jurists of reason could not conclude that the failure to give the

Mayberry instruction “by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violate[d]

due process.” Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1977). Similarly, jurists of reason could

not conclude that, even if the lack of a Mayberry instruction somehow violated due process, the

deprivation substantially influenced the trial outcome. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637

(1993). The evidence presented at trial would not support the conclusion of a reasonable mistake

as to consent, the prerequisite for a Mayberry instruction. Given the lack of evidence of a

reasonable mistake, the failure to give the Mayberry instruction did not substantially influence the

trial outcome. Again, given the state of the evidence, jurists could not conclude that the issue

deserves encouragement to proceed further.

On the third claim, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the same issue in Holley v.

Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). This Court followed the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in

Holley. Therefore, jurists of reason could neither disagree with this Court’s resolution of the claim

nor consider the issue adequately presented for further consideration.

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00331-JLS-WMC Document 15 Filed 08/07/09 Page 2 of 3
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 - 08cv331

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motion for a certificate of

appealability as to all issues presented in the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 7, 2009

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00331-JLS-WMC Document 15 Filed 08/07/09 Page 3 of 3