Terone Woods v. Richard Comerford, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

This Court has repeatedly held that a Certificate of Appealability may issue whenever “jurists of reason could debate” the District Court’s resolution of a constitutional claim. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003); Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017). Courts may not resolve disputed facts, weigh credibility, or deny review based on their own assessment of the merits. The Eleventh Circuit denied a Certificate of Appealability after resolving factual disputes, assessing witness credibility, and concluding that Petitioner’s constitutional claims were harmless in light of the alleged post arrest statement The Questions Presented Are:

1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated this Court’s precedents in Slack; Miller-El, and Buck by denying a Certificate of Appealability after resolving disputed facts and harmlessness on the merits rather than determining whether reasonable jurist could debate the District Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s constitutional claims?

2. Whether reasonable jurist could debate Petitioner’s claims that the State presented false testimony in violation of Giglio v. United States 450 U.S. 150 (1972) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) by failing to impeach the prosecution’s key witness with sworn statements contradicting his trial testimony concerning off tape police interactions, relevant to the voluntariness of Petitioner’s post-arrest statement that the Court’s below treated as dispositive?