Opinion
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-1230
12-04-2015
TIMOTHY SHEDWICK, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, NORTH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP OPINION AND ORDER
On October 27, 2015, the Court entered judgment dismissing the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's November 30, 2015 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No. 22.)
Petitioner asserts that the evidence is constitutionally insufficient to sustain his convictions; his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence; he was denied effective assistance of counsel and appointment of counsel in post-conviction proceedings; and was denied due process and the assistance of counsel because the state appellate court dismissed his petition for post-conviction relief before the public defender indicated whether he would represent Petitioner in those proceedings. The Court dismissed Petitioner's claims as procedurally defaulted or as being without merit.
When a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (recognizing codification of Barefoot in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, 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.'" Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S., at 893 n.4).
Where the Court dismisses a claim on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability "should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. Thus, there are two components to determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue when a claim is dismissed on procedural grounds: "one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the district court's procedural holding." Id. at 485. The court may first "resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments." Id. The Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has met either of these standards here.
The Court, therefore, DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No. 22.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
GREGORY L. FROST
United States District Judge