Wilson v. lynch

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY ROY WILSON, Case No. 22-cv-06042-PCP

8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE 9 v. OF APPEALABILITY IN PART

10 JEFF LYNCH, Re: Dkt. No. 26 Respondent. 11

12 13 BACKGROUND 14 On April 8, 2024, this Court denied petitioner Anthony Roy Wilson’s petition for a writ of 15 habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 21. The facts and procedural history underlying Mr. Wilson’s petition can 16 be found in the Court’s order. Id. at 1–5. The Court held that the state court did not unreasonably 17 apply clearly established federal law in finding no prosecutorial misconduct during Mr. Wilson’s 18 trial, the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in finding no 19 Confrontation Clause violation, and the state court did not make an unreasonable factual 20 determination in denying Mr. Wilson’s motion for a mistrial. Mr. Wilson has appealed the 21 decision to the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case to this Court “for the limited purpose of 22 granting or denying a certificate of appealability.” Dkt. No. 26. For the following reasons, the 23 Court grants a certificate of appealability in part. 24 LEGAL STANDARDS 25 A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “To meet this standard, 27 the petitioner must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court 1 encouragement to proceed further.” Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2022). 2 ANALYSIS 3 As to the Confrontation Clause issue, the Court denies a certificate of appealability. As 4 || explained in the Court’s order, the prosecutor’s introduction of Tanner’s statement “dude has a 5 || hammer” was not testimonial and served a nonhearsay purpose. Dkt No. 21, at 8. Therefore, Mr. 6 || Wilson has not made a substantial showing that this issue is debatable among reasonable jurists. 7 As to the prosecutorial misconduct and denial of mistrial motion issues, however, the 8 || Court grants a certificate of appealability. In denying Mr. Wilson’s habeas petition, the Court held 9 that the state court did not violate constitutional due process because it admonished the jury about 10 || the prosecutor’s questioning regarding Tanner’s statement and determined that any prejudice from 11 the prosecutor’s conduct would be accordingly cured. But the Court finds that the constitutional 12 || issues raised by Mr. Wilson are debatable and could be resolved in a different manner, or at the 5 13 || very least are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Martinez, 33 F.4th at 1261. CONCLUSION 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants a certificate of appealability as to the issues of 16 || whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in finding no 3 17 || prosecutorial misconduct and whether the state court made an unreasonable factual determination 18 in denying Mr. Wilson’s motion for a mistrial. The Court denies a certificate of appealability as to 19 the issue of whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in finding 20 || no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: June 12, 2024 24

6 P. Casey Pitts United States District Judge 27 28