Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00652-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Runnels
Respondent
Ernest Glenn Vick
Petitioner

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

ERNEST GLENN VICK, No. CIV-S-02-0652 MCE/JFM P 

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

D. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's July 21, 2005 denial of

his application for a 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 “only 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. 

Case 2:02-cv-00652-MCE -JFM Document 33 Filed 08/18/05 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be 1

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

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

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

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right in the following issues presented in the

instant petition: whether trial counsel’s decision to call a

psychologist to testify to lack of propensity, failure to ask for

a limiting instruction concerning the use of testimony from the

psychologist’s cross-examination, and failure to object to

testimony concerning post-molestation experiences of a prior

victim demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel; whether

denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial violated due process;

and whether the refusal to strike one of petitioner’s prior

convictions for sentencing resulted in the imposition of cruel

and unusual punishment.

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00652-MCE -JFM Document 33 Filed 08/18/05 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is issued in the present action.

DATED: August 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00652-MCE -JFM Document 33 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 3