T h i s o p i n i o n w a s r e l e a s e d i n i t i a l l y i n ty p e s c r i p tf o r m.  

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11
- 1121 J OS HUAR ES ENDEZ, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . W EN DYK NI GHT, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:10- cv-01607–S EB-DML

— Sarah EvansBarker, Judg e.

O N A PP L I CA T I ON F OR C ERTI FI CATE OF A PPEALABI LI TY J ULY29 , 20 11 

R IPPLE, Cir cu it Judg e( i n cham ber s)
. J oshua Res endez fi l ed a pet i ti on f orhabea s co rpus i n the dist ri ct c ourt . H is pet i ti on, and hi s s ubsequent r equest f ora cer ti fi cate of appeal abi l i ty ( “CO A ”) , w as denie d b y the d ist ri ct2 N o. 11
- 1121
c o ur t . Mr
. R e s e nd e z h a s rene we d h i s r e qu e s tf o r a CO A i n thi s co urt. Because M r. Rese nd ez’ s peti ti on p re sents a que st i o n c onc erni nga de fen dan t’ s co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht t o c o u n s e l th a twe h a v e n o ty e ts e t t l e d , Ig r an t M r . Re se nde z’ s appl i ca ti o n.
I Th e r e c o r d i n thi s c a s e do e s no t e xp l a i n m uch of M r. Res en d ez’s con fi ne m en t or the circu m stan ces su rro und i ng hi s m oti on. M r. R ese nd ez re prese nts that he was convi cted o fr obbe ryand f or ge ry in a n I n d ian a sta te cour t. The r eco rd does notexpl ai n w hen M r. Rese nd ez w as convi cted o r sente nced orwh ether he a ppea l ed hi s cr i m i na l c o nv i ct i o n. W hi l e in pri son, M r. Rese nd ez fi l ed a “ bel ate d m oti on to c or re c t e rr oneo us se ntence, ” seeR
. 1 a t2 , wh i c h we r ea sonabl y may as su m e was a mot i o n un derI ndi an a Code sect i on 3 5- 38- 1- 15 ( enti tl ed “Err oneo us se ntence; nature ; co rre c ti on” and al l owing a defendant to fi l e a m o ti o n t o c o r r ec t a se nt ence “suppor te d b y a mem o r an dum o fl a w s p e c i fi c a l l y p o i n t i n go u tth e d e fe c ti n the o r i g i na l s en te nc e” ). Af te r the s ta te c o ur t den i ed th e m oti on, M r. Rese nd ez re quested appoi ntm ent ofco unsel “to p erfect his ap p eal. ” R.2, E x. A at 1. Th e trialcou rt d en ied M r. R es en d ez ’s re q u es t fo r c ou n se l, seeR
. 2 , Ex
. B, and the Co ur to fApp e a l s o fI nd i a na di s mi s sed M r. R es en d e z’s ap p ea l w ith p rej u d ice for fa ilu re to file a b rie f, seeR
. 2 , Ex
. D. M r. Rese nd ez then fi l ed a p eti ti on f orfedera l habea s co r pus r el i efunde r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4. He a r g ue d tha t th eN o. 11
- 1121 3 st at e co ur ts ha d de ni ed hi m cou ns el i n v i o l at i o n o fthe federa l Consti tuti on. The di str i ct c ourtbel i eved that M r . Re se nde z was a ss er tinga r i g htt o c o uns eli n a sta te postco nvi cti on pro ceedi ng and, ther ef or e, di sm i sse d hi s p et itio n and denie d him a CO A
. M r. Rese nd ez then s ought a COA fro m thi s co urt.
II U nd er§ 2253 ( c) ( 2) o fTi tl e 2 8, “[a] cer ti fi cate o f appeal abi l i ty m ay i ss u e . . . o nl y i fthe appli cant ha s m ade a s ubs ta nt i als ho wi ngo fthe de ni al o fa c o ns ti tu
tion al r i ght. ” The S up re m e Cour t has o bser ved thatan ap p li can t has m a d e a “su bsta nt ialshow ing” w he re “r eas onabl e j uri sts co uld debat e whether ( or, f orthat m att er, ag re e that) the peti ti on s houl d have be en re sol ved i n a d iffer ent m anner orthatthe i ssues p re sente d w er e ‘ adequate t o deser ve encour age m ent t o proce ed further
. ’ ” Sla ck v. M c D a niel , 52 9 U.S
. 47 3, 48 4 ( 2000 ) ( quoti ng B aref

oot v. E st el le, 463 U .S. 88 0, 89 3 & n .4 (1983)). H er e, M r. Rese nd ez ar gues that, under the federa l C on st itu tio n, th e St at e w as req u ire d to p ro vid e h im w i th co unsel fo r p urpose s o fpursui ng hi s m oti on und erI nd i ana Code s ecti on 3 5- 38- 1- 15. The o perat i ve que st i o n, the r efo r e, i s whethe r M r . Re se nde z ha d a c o nsti tuti onalr i ght t o counseli n a pr oce edi ng und er that se ct i o n. “I t i s . . . wel l e st ab l i sh ed th ata c r i m i na l de fen dan t enj o y s [ a] right to c o uns elthr o ug h h i s fi r sta ppea l
. . . b ut4 N o. 11
- 1121 th at, o nc e th e di r ec t appe alha s bee n de ci ded, the r i g ht to counselno l onge r appli es. ” Kit ch e n v . U ni t e d S t at es , 227 F.3d 1014, 1 0 1 8 (7th C ir. 2000) (ci tations om itted ). Feder all aw cl ass i fi es a s tat e pr oceedingas di re ct o r c olla te ra l for th e p u rp os e o f 28 U .S.C . § 22 54
. Se eH uus ko v. Je nki ns , 55 6 F.3d 63 3, 63 5 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 13 0 S
. Ct. 40 2 ( 20 09 )
. W e l o o kpr i m ar i l y t o t wo c o ns i der at i o ns in d eterm ining w h e th er, in p urs uin g the de nial ofa m otion in a state ap p ell ate cou rt, the p roceed ing is p art o fthe dir e c ta pp e a l, f o r wh i c h c o un s e l i s g ua r a nt e e d, or w h et h er it is c o l l a t er al, for w h ich co u n se l is n ot, see Cole m an v. Tho m ps on , 50 1 U.S
. 72 2, 75 6- 57 ( 1991 )
. Fi rs t, w e c onsi der the ti m i ng o fthe m oti on, speci fi cal l y, w hetherthe m ot ion was br ought pri orto the dispos i ti on of t h e d ire c t a p p e a l
. See K itch en , 227F.3d at10 18 . A d d iti o na l l y, we co ns i derthe pro ce dur alc o m pl ex i tyo fthe m o t i o n fi l e d a nd i t s po t e nt i a l i mpa c t o n the c o ur se of th e d efe n d an t’s cr im in al p ro c ee d in gs . Se ei d. W e pr ev i o us l y h ave no t ha d a n o cc as i o n t o de te r m i ne w hethera m oti on br ought pu rs uant to se cti on 3 5- 38- 1- 15 ofthe I nd i ana Code qual i fi es as a dir ect orco l l ate ra l pro c e e di ng . I nd i a na c o ur t s h a v e di s t i ngui s he d thi s pro ceedi ng from a s tate habe as proce edi ng and have re cog ni zed thati t m ay ra i se sente nci ng er ro rs t h at othe rwis e m a y b e c h alle n ge d th ro u gh a d ire c t a p p ea l. Se eRob i ns on v. State, 80 5 N
. E.2 d 783, 78 6- 87 ( I nd
. 20 04)
. S i m i l ar l y, th eyha ve no te d tha t “[ w]h ena n e r r o r r el at ed to s en tenci ng o ccurs , i t i s in the b es t in ter est s o fal l co ncer ned that i t be i m m edi ate ly d isco ver ed and cor re cted. ” Id. at 786. That thi s pro cedure i s a n al terna tiv e to dir ect appeal f or se ntenci ng i ssues and that i t i s desi gned toN o. 11
- 1121 5

A lthoug h a s tat e c ourt deter m inat ion on w hether counsel 1 sho u ld b e ap p oin ted f or this p ro ceed ing w ou ld no t be d eterm in a tiv e o fo u r o w n in q u ir y , cf
. Huus k o v. Je nk i ns , 556 F. 3d 633, 63 5 ( 7th Ci r. ) ( “Fe der al l aw classi fi es a s t at e pro c ee di ng for th e p u rp o se o f § 2 2 5 4
. . . .”), cert . den i ed, 13 0 S. Ct
. 4 0 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , we note tha t th er e does notapp ear t o be a cons is tentapp roach am on g state cou rts w ith resp ect to w he the r c o u nsel sh ou ld b e a p p o in te d for p u rp o se s o f th is p ro ce ed in g . C o m p a re N eff v . S tate, 888 N
. E.2d 1249, 1250 ( Ind. 2008) ( noti ng that c o u n se l w a s a p p oin ted to the d efend an t f ollo w ing the d en ial of his m o tio n in th e t ri a l co u rt ) w ith G ad d ie v . S t ate , 566 N
. E.2d 535, 53 7 ( I nd. 19 91 ) ( up ho ldi ng a t ri al c our t ’ s s um m ar y de ni al of (co n tin u ed ...) be b ro ught as so on a s the er ro r i s r eco gni zed bo th s up po r t a c o l o r a b l e c a s e tha t the pr o c e du r e s houl d be ch aract erized as d irect f or pu rp oses of a defen d an t’s c on st itu tio n al rig h t t o c ou n se l. W hetherthe proce du re i s char ac teri zed co rr ectl y a s di r ec t o r c o l l at er alpr es en ts a n a nt ec ede ntno n- co ns ti tu
ti on al quest i on. A cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty sti l l can be gran ted on this qu estion, how ever, bec au se M r. Res en d ez’s p et itio n rais es a su b st an tia l co n st itu tio n al iss u e, n am ely th e righ t t o c ou n se l. See D a vis v . B o rgen , 34 9 F
. 3d 1027, 10 29 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( “I fthe r e i s a su bs ta nt i alc o ns ti tu
tio n al iss u e, anda n a n t e c e d e n tn o n - c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i ss ue i nd epen d en tly i s s ubstanti al, then the c er ti fi cate m ay i ncl ud e that i ssue as w el l
. ” ( ci ti ng Slack, 529 U
. S. at 484)). Because thi s c ou rt has not previ ousl y dete rm i ned how a m oti on br ought und erse ctio n 3 5- 38- 1- 15 shoul d be c ha r a c t e r i z e d, c

f
. Lo ngwor t h v
. O zm i nt, 30 2 F
. S up p. 2d 56 9, 16 N o. 11
- 1121

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 a m ot i on withouta f or m al he ar i ng a nd withoutap p oint i ng co u n se l).

8- 8- 11 574 ( D.S
. C. 2004 ) ( l i sting tha t “t h e is sue i s v er y m uch unreso l v e d” i n s up po r to fi t s c o nc l us i o n tha ta CO A sh ou ld issue ), a n d becau se, given th e factors this cou rt consi ders, r eas onabl e j uri sts co uld di ffero n w hether th is pr oc ee d in g sh ou ld b e con sid er ed d ire c t or co llat er al, M r. Rese nd ez’ s a pp l i cati on s ets f or th a substa nti al showing ofthe denia l o fa const i tuti onalr i ght. Iexpre ss no vi ew o n t h e cor re ct r eso l uti on o fthe questi on pre se n te d . M r. R es en d ez ’s ap p lica tio n fo r a C O A th er efo re is g r a nt e d. I TI SS O O RDER ED .