Opinion
Case No. 10-10437
03-04-2013
FRED SHANNON DAMRON Petitioner, v. LLOYD RAPELJE, Respondent.
Honorable David M. Lawson
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 2, 2010. On March 4, 2013 the Court entered an opinion and order determining that a factual basis was not necessary to support the petitioner's guilty plea, the petitioner could not collaterally attack his voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, and the petitioner's merger argument lacked merit. 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 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 not debate whether a factual basis was necessary to support the petitioner's guilty plea, the petitioner could collaterally attack his voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, or the petitioner's merger argument lacked merit. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability on these issues.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
_____________
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
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.
_____________
DEBORAH R. TOFIL