Whether a Court of Appeal's decision that failed to provide a reasoned justification for denying a Certificate of Appealability, but rather stated only a conclusion that a district court's denial of a habeas petition was neither debatable nor wrong, violated the standards established by 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c) (2), and the requirements established by this Court for implementing that statute, where a petitioner makes a substantial showing that the retroactive application to his case of an alteration in a state's criminal law that eliminated an element of the crime charged and lowered the prosecution's burden of proof, violated Due Process

QUESTION PRESENTED A prisoner whose Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied, has no absolute right to an appeal, but must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (COA) from a Circuit Court or Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. §2253 (c) (2), based on a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right. This restrictive statutory regimen is dependent upon those courts’ adherence to the statutory standards and the precedents of this Court, in order to retain the justice in our justice system, and to guarantee the Constitutional promise of equal justice under law. When the reasons for denial of a COA are undisclosed, there is no assurance that the laws established by 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c) (2), and this Court, were followed and that a just and fair decision was reached. That is particularly the case where a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right in his or her Application for a COA. Those considerations pose the question presented The question presented is: Whether a Court of Appeal’s decision that failed to provide a reasoned justification for denying a Certificate of Appealability, but rather stated only a conclusion that a district court’s denial of a habeas petition was neither debatable nor wrong, violated the standards established by 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c) (2), and the requirements established by this Court for implementing that statute, where a petitioner makes a substantial showing that the retroactive application to his case of an alteration in a state’s criminal law that eliminated an element of the crime charged and lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof, violated Due Process. i