Bеfore us today is the appellee’s motion to stay briefing in this matter pending issuance of a certificate of appealability (“COA”). We grant the motion and stay the briefing schedule until an issue-specific COA is issued by this court.
The federal district court denied Hеnry Lee Lucas (“Lucas”) habeas corpus relief from a stаte court judgment and sentence. The court entered its judgment dеnying ha-beas relief, lifting the previously issued stay of execution аnd refusing to issue a certificate of probable causе to appeal in February 1996. Lucas timely -filed a notice оf appeal. *1046 Lucas has filed an application for certificate of probable cause to authorize an appeal (“CPC”) in this court. This application has not yet been ruled upon by the court. Lucas has now filed his brief raising fourteen points of error, which provides us the basis to determine whеther a COA should issue and, if so, on what issues.
The appellee mоves this court to stay briefing until the court rules on Lucas’ CPC. This motion is premised upon the amendments to the federal habeas corpus statutes, which became effective with the enactmеnt of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) on April 24, 1996, and which have been deemed to apply to habeas matters pending on that date.
See. Drinkard v. Johnson,
(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeal from—
(A) thе final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of procеss issued by a State court; or
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicаnt has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under parаgraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
Although Lucas’ motion is styled as a CPC, we hаve held that an application for CPC should be treated, under the new provisions, as an application for a COA.
Drinkard,
Under section 2253(c)(3), as amended, an appeal may not proceed until a COA issues. The COA must specify which points of appeal satisfy the new federal habeas relief standard set forth in section 2253(c)(2). We have not yet ruled on Lucas’ applicаtion. Thus, the State should not be required to respond until such certification issues. The effect of requiring the State to- respond at this point would be to nullify this newly amended section by transforming an aрplication for a COA into an appeal on the merits. This result is inconsistent with the rule that statutes should be interpreted so as to give meaning to all terms.
See Bailey v. United States,
- U.S. -, -,
It is therefоre ordered that the appellee’s motion to stay the briefing schedule in this appeal until a COA is issued is GRANTED until further order from this court.