Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00177/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00177-0/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

06cv0177

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN EINER PETERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv0177 JAH(PCL)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing through counsel, has filed an application for a

certificate of appealability from this Court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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).

To meet this standard, petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of

reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220

F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. Mc Daniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)), and

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Petitioner does not have to show “that he should

prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.” Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1025

(citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n. 4).

Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether the state court’s

decision on petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is entitled to review under an

Case 3:06-cv-00177-JAH-PCL Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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 06cv0177

objectively reasonable standard; and (2) whether the state court erred in finding no evidence

in the record to support a mistaken consent defense. 

1. Objectively Reasonable Standard of Review

Petitioner firsts requests a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state

court’s analysis of petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was properly reviewed

under an objectively reasonable standard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Petitioner contends

that an objectively reasonable standard was erroneously applied to the state court’s

determination on this issue because the state court did not mention the controlling federal

authority on ineffective assistance of counsel claims and, thus, applied no standard of law in

finding petitioner’s counsel was not ineffective. See Appl. at 14. Petitioner contends this issue

has been found debatable by the Ninth Circuit, thus justifying a certificate of appealability. Id.

at 14-15 (citing Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

In support of his contention, petitioner cites to two recent Ninth Circuit cases: Nunes

v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1055 (9th Cir. 2003) and Evanchyk v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 933, 940

(9th Cir. 2003). However, in Nunes and Evanchyk, the state courts were found by the Ninth

Circuit to either have applied the correct federal law unreasonably or to have applied the wrong

federal law. See Nunes, 350 F.3d at 1055 (finding that the state court had “applied the

Strickland test unreasonably.”); Evanchyk, 340 F.3d at 940 (“the Arizona Court of Appeals ...

failed to apply the correct controlling authority.”). Neither of these cases support petitioner’s

contention that, when no standard of law is mentioned by the state court, the state court’s

decision is not entitled to review under an objectively reasonable standard even if the state court

analyzed the facts in a manner consistent with clearly established federal law, as was done here.

See Appl. at 14. 

Additionally, petitioner cites to Lambert, 393 F.3d at 965, for the proposition that the

issue at bar is subject to an ongoing debate. See Appl. at 14-15. In Lambert, the Ninth Circuit,

although noting the federal habeas statute’s “provisions have been subjected to multiple,

sometimes conflicting, interpretations,” found the statute clearly requires a district court to give

“deference to state court determinations [following] an adjudication on the merits.” Lambert,

Case 3:06-cv-00177-JAH-PCL Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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 06cv0177

393 F.3d at 965. The Lambert court did not, as suggested by petitioner, acknowledge an

ongoing “debate over the deference due [state court decisions in federal habeas cases] where

there is no mention or discussion of the federal constitutional claim by the state court” which

might justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Appl. at 14-15; see Lambert, 393 F.3d

at 965. Instead, the Ninth Circuit found there is debate among the circuit courts as to the

proper guidelines to be used in determining when an adjudication on the merits by the state

court has occurred. Lambert, 393 F.3d at 965.

Here, this Court determined that, even though the state court had failed to specify what

legal standard it applied, the analysis presented by the state court to the facts of this case was

consistent with the standard of law enunciated by the clearly established United States Supreme

Court law on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Doc. # 18 at 5. Because the United

States Supreme Court has found a state court’s decision properly analyzed under an objectively

reasonable standard of review as long as the state court had applied a standard consistent with

the clearly established federal law on the subject, see Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002), this

Court found it proper to apply that standard of review to the state court’s determination of

petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Doc. # 18 at 5. None of the cases cited

by petitioner contradicts this Court’s finding nor suggests the issue might be resolved any other

way. This Court, therefore, finds this issue is neither debatable among jurists of reason nor

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly,

this Court finds petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether

the state court’s determination of petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was

properly reviewed under an objectively reasonable standard.

2. Evidence Supporting Mistaken Consent Defense

Petitioner also seeks a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state court’s

factual finding that there was no evidence in the record supporting petitioner’s proposed

mistaken consent defense was properly presumed correct where “an independent review of that

same evidence reveals” the state court’s finding was in error. Appl. at 16. This Court adopted

the magistrate judge’s determination that petitioner had failed to present clear and convincing

Case 3:06-cv-00177-JAH-PCL Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4 06cv0177

evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded the state court on this factual finding.

See Doc. # 18 at 6. 

Petitioner appears to contend that this Court should have conducted an independent

review of the state court record to determine whether the state court’s factual finding was

correct. See Appl. at 16. However, this Court may only conduct such an independent review

if petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness due

the state court’s factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Petitioner points to only one

portion of the expert report concerning petitioner’s physical and mental capabilities to support

his contention, claiming that portion of the report “could have provided the basis for” a

mistaken consent defense. Appl. at 16. The fact that there may be one portion of the expert

report which might be found to provide a basis for the defense can hardly be considered clear

and convincing evidence rebutting the presumption that the state court reviewed the record as

a whole and found it contained no evidence to support the defense. Therefore, this Court finds

this issue is also neither debatable among jurists of reason nor deserving of encouragement to

proceed further. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly, this Court finds petitioner is

not entitled to a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state court’s factual

finding was properly presumed to be correct.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for a

certificate of appealability is DENIED in its entirety.

DATED: November 8, 2006

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00177-JAH-PCL Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 4