Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03395/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03395-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Cademartori
Respondent
Andre Joseph Lamothe
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE JOSEPH LAMOTHE,

Petitioner,

 v.

NICHOLAS CADEMARTORI, Chief

Probation Officer,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3395 CW

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY IN

PART

(COA No. 05-17424)

Petitioner Andre Joseph LaMothe, on probation in the

County of Santa Clara in the custody of Nicholas

Cademartori, Chief Probation Officer, pursuant to the

judgment of the superior court of Santa Clara County, filed

a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The Court denied the petition. Petitioner sought

a writ of appealability. The Ninth Circuit remanded for a

limited purpose, for this Court to issue a modified

certificate of appealability specifying which issue or

issues satisfy the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2).

A habeas petitioner may not appeal a final order in a

federal habeas proceeding without first obtaining a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability should be

granted "only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28

Case 4:04-cv-03395-CW Document 40 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Section 2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the

United States Supreme Court in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,

892-93 (1983). In Barefoot, the Court explained that "a

substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right" means that

a petitioner "must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a

different manner], or that the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further." Id. at 893 n.4.

2

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1

The Court finds that Petitioner has made a substantial

showing on claim one, that the State court’s failure to

order a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that

the victim gave false testimony violated his Fourteenth

Amendment due process right to a fair trial, and claim

three, that the exclusion of conspiracy evidence violated

his Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a fair trial

and his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The

Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of a constitutional violation on any of his other

claims.

Accordingly, the application for a certificate of

appealability is GRANTED in part. The Court certifies that

the appeal is taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 9/6/06

DATED: _______________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Copies mailed as noted

on attached sheet

Case 4:04-cv-03395-CW Document 40 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Case 4:04-cv-03395-CW Document 40 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 3