|
|
|
| COA |
|
Tennard v. Dretke,
No. 02-10038 (U.S., June 24, 2004): Fifth Circuit erred in denying a COA in capital case when it applied a "relevance" test to mitigating evidence.
|
|
|
United States v. Taylor,
No. 05-3417 (10th Cir., July 5, 2006) (Published): Habeas Corpus; COA: This case involved a federal prisoner's application for a Certificate of Appealability to present several claims to the Court of Appeals. In habeas cases, if the Petitioner is denied in the District Court, he can not appeal as a matter of right; rather, he must apply for the COA and show that his issues are debatable among reasonable jurists. The panel in this case concluded that none of Taylor's issues were debatable and it denied the COA and dismissed the appeal. I am not sure why this case was published.
|
|
|
Magar v. Parker,
No. 06-6369 (10th Cir., June 19, 2007) (Published): Habeas Corpus; COA & Procedural Default: Magar, an Oklahoma inmate, challenged the imposition of prison discipline which cost him some earned good behavior credits. Magar exhausted his remedies through DOC and when he was denied there he proceeded to federal court via a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court dismissed the case and Magar sought a Certificate of Appealability in the Circuit. Unfortunately for Magar, Oklahoma amended its statutes at the time of his case and gave inmates such as him the right to judicial review of loss of earned credits. Thus, Magar's claim was procedurally defaulted because he did not exhaust his state remedies and he could not show cause and prejudice sufficient to excuse the default.
|
|
|
|
