Layton v. Painter

Fourth Circuit

Layton v. Painter

81 F. App'x 771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 2003

Docket02-7947

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 F. App'x 771 (Layton v. Painter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Layton v. Painter, 81 F. App'x 771 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Layton seeks to appeal the district court’s order and order on reconsideration denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Layton cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not *772 issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). As to two of the issues Layton presents - whether the trial court adequately advised Layton regarding the dangers of self-representation, and whether the trial court erred in accepting Layton’s attorney’s request that he be allowed not to directly examine Layton, because of his belief that Layton planned to perjure himself on the stand - Judge Williams and Judge Traxler conclude that Layton has made the required showing. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability as to these issues. Having independently reviewed the record, however, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying habeas relief as to these issues, and accordingly affirm its judgment. As to the remaining issues, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Layton seeks to appeal the district court’s order and order on reconsideration denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Layton cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not *772 issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). As to two of the issues Layton presents - whether the trial court adequately advised Layton regarding the dangers of self-representation, and whether the trial court erred in accepting Layton’s attorney’s request that he be allowed not to directly examine Layton, because of his belief that Layton planned to perjure himself on the stand - Judge Williams and Judge Traxler conclude that Layton has made the required showing. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability as to these issues. Having independently reviewed the record, however, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying habeas relief as to these issues, and accordingly affirm its judgment. As to the remaining issues, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F. App'x 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layton-v-painter-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack