Cidney Bowdean Ingram v. Fredeane Artis, Warden
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities
whether-a-certificate-of-appealability-should-be-issued
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 5 A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA) SHOULD BE ISSUED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT DEFINED THE PORCH, CONSISTENT WITH MICHIGAN LAW, AS PART OF THE HOME FROM WHICH MR. INGRAM HAD NO DUTY TO RETREAT, DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OR DUE PROCESS; REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THIS HOLDING TO BE DEBATABLE, OR WOULD FIND THAT THIS ISSUE DESERVES ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROCEED FURTHER. II. A COA SHOULD BE ISSUED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO AJURY INSTRUCTION THAT IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER MR. INGRAM HAD A DUTY TO RETREAT; AND FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT, IN LIGHT OF THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, MR. INGRAM HAD NO DUTY TO RETREAT; DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OR DUE PROCESS. REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THESE HOLDINGS TO BE DEBATABLE, OR WOULD FIND THAT THESE ISSUES DESERVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROCEED FURTHER. il lI. ACOASHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH, FOR PURPOSES OF EXPLAINING THE DUTY TO RETREAT, DEFINED THE OFFENSE OF HOME INVASION AS AN OFFENSE THAT INCLUDED THE ELEMENT OF “ENTERING,” WHICH COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ENTRY OF ANY PART OF A PERSON’S BODY INTO THE DWELLING, DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OR DUE PROCESS OF LAW; REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THIS RULING TO BE DEBATABLE, OR WOULD FIND THAT THIS ISSUE DESERVES ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROCEED FURTHER. IV. ACOASHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT, BY FAILING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT BOTH HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY AND HIS FIRST APPELLATE ATTORNEY WERE INEFFECTIVE, AND AS A RESULT, HE FAILED TO SHOW HE SUFFERED ACTUAL PREJUDICE; REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THIS RULING TO BE DEBATABLE, OR WOULD FIND THE ISSUE RAISED HEREIN TO DESERVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROCEED FURTHER.