UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TITUS CURTIS WILLIS,

Petitioner, Case Number 09-11945

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

SHIRLEE HARRY,

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

was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and the effective assistance of trial

counsel. 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

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

2:09-cv-11945-DML-DAS Doc # 11 Filed 03/04/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 519
-2-

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).

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petitioner was deprived of

the effective assistance of trial counsel. Therefore, the Court will grant a certificate of appealability

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

petitioner’s speedy trial claim. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability on that

claim.

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

petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.

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

speedy trial claim.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 4, 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 March 4, 2013.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-11945-DML-DAS Doc # 11 Filed 03/04/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 520