Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02801/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02801-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Lia
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

MICHAEL LIA,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-02801 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION

On December 2, 2005, this Court denied Petitioner Michael Lia’s (“Petitioner”) petition

for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on an application for a certificate

of appealability on December 29, 2005.

BACKGROUND

On March 17 2003, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court for the State

of California in and for the County of San Mateo on 29 counts for violating California Penal

Code § 288(a), on 15 counts for violating California Penal Code § 288a(b)(2), and 5 counts for

violating California Penal Code § 288(c)(1). On April 29, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to 26

years in state prison.

Petitioner’s sole claim in his petition was that a confession allegedly obtained in

violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 394 U.S. 436 (1966) was permitted to be introduced at trial. 

This Court denied Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition on the merits.

Case 3:05-cv-02801-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

LEGAL STANDARD

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”) (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal (“CPC”)). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A judge shall grant a COA “only

if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing

required to satisfy [section] 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. This requires an overview of the claims in the

habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits. It does not require full consideration of

the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003). Nor does it require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Id.; accord Lambright

v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (issuance of COA is not precluded merely

because petitioner cannot meet standard for actually obtaining habeas relief). The question is

the debatability of the underlying claim, not the resolution of that debate. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at

342.

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” 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). Slack, 529 U.S. at 483. In Barefoot, the Supreme 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. (citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in

original).

The COA must indicate which issues satisfy the section 2253(c)(3) standard, and the

Court of Appeals is limited to considering only those claims. See Hivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d

1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).

Case 3:05-cv-02801-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Case 3:05-cv-02801-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks a COA on the sole claim raised in his petition, namely that the appellate

court’s conclusion that Petitioner was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda was in error. In

arguing the merits of Petitioner’s claim, the parties did not dispute that the state appellate court

correctly identified the governing legal principles. Rather, the parties disputed whether the

application of those principles resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law. This Court concluded that it did not.

The Court recognizes that in ruling on the request for a COA, Petitioner need not

demonstrate that he will succeed on appeal. However, for the reasons set forth in its Order

denying the petition on the merits, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not “demonstrate[d]

that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s application for a COA is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02801-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4