Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cavallaro v. Denney

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division

January 13, 2015

VINCENT CAVALLARO, Petitioner,
v.
LARRY DENNEY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

FERNANDO J. GAITAN, Jr., District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner's Supplemental Application for a Certificate of Appealability (Doc. # 19).

I. BACKGROUND

Cavallaro was initially incarcerated in North Carolina for murder. He escaped and committed two homicides in Missouri. In 1969, Cavallaro was charged with first and second degree murder. On May 5, 1969, Cavallaro pled guilty to these charges and was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder charge, and 35 years for the second degree murder charge. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. In 1981, Cavallaro escaped from a Missouri prison. He later turned himself in and pled guilty to the charge of escape and was sentenced to five years on May 7, 1981. Cavallaro was denied parole and/or conditional release in March 2009 by the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole ("MBPP"). Cavallaro challenged this denial in the Circuit Court of Cole County, arguing that he had a liberty interest in the use of statutes and regulations in force at the time of his offense. He also claimed that he had a liberty interest in release on parole. He also claimed that his denial was based on a post-1982 statute and that this violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Circuit Court construed the action as a petition for mandamus against the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole and on March 10, 2010, granted summary judgment to the MBPP and the Warden. On September 13, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court. On October 26, 2012, petitioner filed an Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court. On September 2, 2014, this Court denied petitioner's Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus and denied petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has now filed a Supplemental Application for a Certificate of Appealability, asserting that the Court erred in five specific areas.

II. STANDARD

The federal statute governing certificates of appealability provides that "[a] certificate of appealability may issue... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right requires that "issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings." Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir.1997).

Charron v. Hurley, No. 4:10CV1487 HEA, 2013 WL 5744164, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2013).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness of Request for a Certificate of Appealability

The Order denying Cavallaro's Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 was filed on September 2, 2014. On October 17, 2014, the Court received correspondence from Cavallaro regarding alleged unethical behavior of his former counsel. Cavallaro advised that his former counsel is no longer representing him. On October 20, 2014, Cavallaro filed a Supplemental Application for a Certificate of Appealability. In the September 2, 2014 Order denying Cavallaro's §2254 habeas petition, the Court stated that a Certificate of Appealability would not be issued because the issues raised by Cavallaro did not meet the standard. In his Supplemental Application, Cavallaro states that he wishes to raise three issues.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings states in part:

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant....If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial, but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.