Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01276-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Prince Franklin
Petitioner
James Walker
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY PRINCE FRANKLIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1276 FCD CHS P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, Warden,

Respondent.

ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a timely notice of appeal of

this court’s order signed on February 1, 2010 and entered on February 2, 2010 denying his

application for writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of

appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “if the applicant

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

The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the

requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

Case 2:08-cv-01276-FCD-CHS Document 26 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the

standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to

issuance of a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

In this case, petitioner alleged in his first claim that he was unconstitutionally

sentenced to the statutory maximum upper terms for sexual assault and rape based upon facts not

found true by the jury or otherwise admitted, in violation of the rules set forth by the Supreme

Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004). Notably, neither aggravating factor cited by the judge at petitioner’s re-sentencing to

support selection of the statutory maximum upper term had been admitted by petitioner or found

true by the jury, although this court held that upper term sentencing was nevertheless authorized

by other facts, not cited by the judge, which were reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by

petitioner. Because the court believes this issue is debatable among jurists of reason, or could

potentially be resolved differently by a different court, a certificate of appealability shall issue

with respect to this claim.

Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing with respect to the remaining

claims presented in the petition. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability shall issue in the present action solely with respect to petitioner’s claim that he was

unconstitutionally sentenced to the statutory maximum upper terms for sexual assault and rape in

violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004).

DATED: February 22, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01276-FCD-CHS Document 26 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2