Certificate of appealability

Last updated

In the most common types of habeas corpus proceedings in the United States federal courts, a certificate of appealability is a legal document that must be issued before a petitioner may appeal from a denial of the writ. [1] The certificate may only be issued when the petitioner has made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right". [2]

The application may be made explicitly, but a notice of appeal made without a certificate of appealability is treated as an implicit application for the certificate. [3] "To obtain a [certificate of appealability], the [petitioner] must make a request to a district or circuit court judge. In the application, the [petitioner] includes the issues he wishes to raise on appeal. In general, the application process is informal, there is no hearing, and the government rarely files a brief in response to the prisoner's request. The determination is simply made in chambers. If the district court judge denies the request, the [petitioner] may apply to the circuit judge. In addition, a notice of appeal to the circuit court can be treated as a request for a COA." [4]

Under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, "a certificate of appealability is not required when a state or its representative or the United States or its representative appeals." [5] A certificate of appealability is also not required for petitioners seeking a writ of coram nobis; however, the writ of coram nobis is only available for those who are no longer in-custody (or on probation) and the issues raised in the petition could not have been known while the petitioner was in-custody. [6]

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 changed the procedures for issuing a certificate of appealability in federal court. Under the 1996 law, there can be no appeal from a final order in a §2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. [7]

The United States Supreme Court held in Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 (2000), that the standard for issuing a certificate is whether "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner". [8]

Related Research Articles

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

An interlocutory appeal occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. The rules governing how and when interlocutory appeals may be taken vary by jurisdiction.

<i>Muth v. Frank</i>

Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the denial to an individual of a writ of habeas corpus for violation of Wisconsin's laws criminalizing incest was not unconstitutional. The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas invalidating anti-sodomy laws two years prior, which the Seventh Circuit rejected.

In the United States, extradition law is a collection of federal laws that regulate extradition, the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation.

Abu Bakker Qassim, et al. v. George W. Bush, et al. (05-5477), is a case in which two Muslim Uyghurs challenged their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">D. Brooks Smith</span> American judge (born 1951)

David Brookman "Brooks" Smith is a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals.

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the United States Navy and the Marine Corps.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

<i>Clawson v. United States</i> 1885 United States Supreme Court case

Clawson v. United States, 113 U.S. 143 (1885), was a case regarding a Utah territorial statute which authorized an appeal by a defendant in a criminal action from a final judgment of conviction, which provides that an appeal shall stay execution upon filing with the clerk a certificate of a judge that in his opinion there is probable cause for the appeal, and further provides that after conviction, a defendant who has appealed may be admitted to bail as of right when the judgment is for the payment of a fine only, and as matter of discretion in other cases, does not confer upon a defendant convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned the right, after appeal and filing of certificate of probable cause, to be admitted to bail except within the discretion of the court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Petition for review</span>

In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. In United States federal courts, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency actions.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a certificate of appealability must be issued by a circuit Justice of judge before an appeal can proceed. The certificate of appealability (COA) may only be issued if the applicant "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

Fundamental error is a legal term provided by United States Courts to describe an error which occurs whenever a judgement violates a federal fundamental right. In United States constitutional law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts within the United States may define fundamental error rules independently of the federal courts. State fundamental error rules may include errors which violate rights in additional to those rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but these rules may not infringe upon federal fundamental rights. Any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the writ of coram nobis as the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.

<i>Hirabayashi v. United States</i> (1987)

Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, is a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and recognized for both its historical and legal significance. The case is historically significant for vacating the World War II–era convictions of Japanese American civil rights leader Gordon Hirabayashi. Those convictions were affirmed in the Supreme Court's 1943 decision Hirabayashi v. United States. The case is legally significant for establishing the standard to determine when any federal court in the Ninth Circuit may issue a writ of coram nobis.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writ of mandate (California)</span> Type of extraordinary writ in California

The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.

Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Instead, the Court said, whether the interrogation was custodial depended on the specific circumstances, and moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not custodial. This decision overturned the rule of the Sixth Circuit, and denied the prisoner's habeas corpus petition.

References

  1. SeeFed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).
  2. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
  3. SeeFed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2) ("If no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal constitutes a request addressed to the judges of the court of appeals.").
  4. Margaret A. Upshaw, The Unappealing State of Certificates of Appealability Archived 2016-05-14 at the Wayback Machine , 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1609, 1615 (2015).
  5. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(3).
  6. United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189 n. 1 (3d Cir.2000)
  7. Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ___, No. 15-6418 (2016).
  8. Welch, slip op. at 6 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)) (quotation marks omitted).