UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD PIONTEK,

Petitioner, Case Number 08-15074

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

CARMEN PALMER,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Ronald Piontek filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging his convictions of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich.

Comp. Laws 750.520b, and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Mich. Comp.

Laws 750.520c. A Wayne County, Michigan circuit court jury found the petitioner guilty of those

crimes, and the trial judge sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 20

to 40 years. The petitioner raised three claims: (1) his right to a fair trial and confrontation were

violated when he was denied access to the complainant’s school and psychological counseling

records; (2) his right to present a defense was violated when the trial court refused to grant an

adjournment after a police officer ignored defense counsel’s subpoena to appear at trial; and (3) he

was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The Court found that none of his claims had

merit and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts, which was amended as of December 1, 2009:

The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a

final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must

state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

2:08-cv-15074-DML-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/20/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1280
-2-

§ 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but

may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22.

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate

of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such

a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of

Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)

(internal quotes and citations omitted).

Although the Court believes it correctly rejected the petitioner’s claims, a reasonable jurist

could conclude otherwise with respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the

Court will grant the petitioner a certificate of appealability on his ineffective assistance of counsel

claim. However, the Court will deny the certificate of appealability on the two remaining claims.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate these issues, and that the Court properly

rejected these claims. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner is granted a certificate of appealability with

respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim only. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 20, 2012

2:08-cv-15074-DML-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/20/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1281
-3-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or

first class U.S. mail on March 20, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:08-cv-15074-DML-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/20/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1282