Ronald Anthony Gomez v. Christian Pfeiffer, Warden, et al.

I. Does a state trial court’s failure to give a unanimity instruction to a jury in a criminal trial raise a debatable valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-633 (1991)), or do such claims involve Sixth Amendment Jury Unanimity, which had not been extended to the States at the time of trial. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972)? II. Does a state trial court’s instruction to the jury in a criminal trial that the jurors need not be unanimous as to which act resulted in assault likely to result in great bodily injury, coupled with an instruction on the elements of a different charge, raise a debatable valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-633 (1991)), or do such claims involve Sixth Amendment Jury Unanimity, which had not been extended to the States at the time of trial. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972)? III. Did the Court of Appeal err in denying Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appeal following the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus from a state conviction on the grounds that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether a state trial court’s failure to give a required unanimity instruction to a jury in a criminal trial states a constitutional right? IV. Did the Court of Appeal err in denying Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appeal following the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus from a state conviction on the grounds that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether defense counsel’s agreement with the trial court’s erroneous instruction and/or failure to object and/or request a unanimity instruction did not result in constitutionally deficient counsel under the Sixth Amendment?