UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD COCHRANE,

Petitioner, Case Number 09-11963

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

DEBRA SCUTT,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 21, 2009. On February 27,

2013,, the Court entered an opinion and order denying the petition, determining that the petitioner’s

the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s motions to adjourn his retrial and for an independent

psychological evaluation of the complainant did not render his trial fundamentally unfair, that

petitioner’s claim based on the trial court’s admission of inconsistent statements by the complainant

was not cognizable on federal habeas review, that Michigan Court of Appeal’s determination that

the trial court did not impose an excessive sentence to punish the petitioner for exercising his right

to a trial was not an unreasonable determination of the facts, and that the petitioner had offered no

evidence that prosecution witnesses and members of the complainant’s family made contact with

jurors prior to their deliberations. On this basis, the Court entered judgment against the petitioner.

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, 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. §

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

2:09-cv-11963-DML-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 02/22/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 883
-2-

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

Procedure 22.

Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.

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).

Concerning the issue of the petitioner’s sentencing, the Court finds that reasonable jurists

could debate whether the sentencing court considered the petitioner’s exercise of his trial right as

a factor in the severity of the sentence. Therefore, the Court will grant a certificate of appealability

on this issue. However, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the resolution of any

of the other claims raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of

appealability on the remaining claims.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED on the

petitioner’s claim that the sentencing court considered the petitioner’s exercise of his trial right as

a factor in the severity of the sentence.

2:09-cv-11963-DML-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 02/22/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 884
-3-

It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED as to the petitioner’s

remaining claims.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 22, 2013

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 February 22, 2013.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-11963-DML-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 02/22/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 885