Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03919/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03919-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Carey
Respondent
Jeffrey Galbraith
Plaintiff

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

JEFFREY GALBRAITH,

Petitioner,

 v.

 THOMAS CAREY, Warden, California

Correctional Institution, Techachapi

Respondent. /

No. C 04-03919 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Jeffrey Galbraith requests a certificate of appealability so that he may

challenge, before the Ninth Circuit, the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Because Mr. Galbraith made a substantial showing that his Miranda rights were violated and

that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, petitioner’s request is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

When he was fifteen years old, petitioner and an accomplice robbed a store, shooting

and killing the owner in the process. Petitioner was found unfit for treatment by the juvenile

court and tried in superior court. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to

prison for fifteen years to life. The state court of appeal affirmed. The California Supreme

Court denied review. 

On September 16, 2005, this Court denied Mr. Galbraith’s petition. He then filed the 

Case 3:04-cv-03919-WHA Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

present request for a certificate of appealability on October 17, 2005.

ANALYSIS

A district court judge may grant a certificate of appealability “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 is granted if the petitioner demonstrates “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.” Any doubt is resolved in the

petitioner’s favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations

omitted).

Petitioner advances two claims. First, he argues that his rights were violated when a

police officer elicited an inculpatory statement from him without first advising him of his

Miranda rights and, later, when another officer purportedly elicited involuntary statements from

him after he waived his Miranda rights. Second, he contends that, before the juvenile court

found him unfit for treatment, his attorney should have required the prosecution to put on a

prima facie case that he committed the alleged offense. He claims such a failure by the attorney

was ineffective assistance of counsel.

CONCLUSION

Although this Court denied all of petitioner’s claims, reasonable jurists may disagree. 

As such, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is GRANTED for the claims

described above. The Clerk of the Court shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order,

to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03919-WHA Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2