Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00096/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00096-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEL EDDY COLEGROVE,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN HOSHINO,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-00096-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

[Re: ECF 36]

Petitioner timely moves for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c), following the Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. See ECF 34. 

Petitioner seeks the COA as to a single issue: whether he was denied the effective assistance of 

counsel during plea bargaining. See Mot., ECF 36-1 at 1. 

A COA should be granted when a petitioner demonstrates “that the issues are debateable 

among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [differently]; or that the questions are 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 

1010 (9th Cir. 2002). A court must resolve any doubts about the appropriateness of a COA in 

favor of the petitioner. See, e.g., Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The Court finds that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing under Jennings to merit a 

COA as to whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a COA is issued in the present action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-00096-BLF Document 37 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 1