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.

Jones v. Madden

United States District Court, C.D. California

September 5, 2019

Mark Anthony Jones
v.
Raymond Madden, Warden

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order To Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Summarily Dismissed As Second And Successive

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         On August 8, 2019, Mark Anthony Jones (“Petitioner”) constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1999 conviction. The Petition appears subject to dismissal because it is second and successive. The Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed, however, without giving Petitioner an opportunity to address this issue.

         II.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On November 19, 1999, Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder in San Bernardino County Superior Court. Jones v. Runnels, EDCV 03-0557-MMM (FMO), Dkt. 33.[1] The jury also found true the allegations that, in committing the crime, Petitioner (1) personally used a firearm; (2) intentionally and personally discharged a firearm; and (3) intentionally and personally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury to his victim. Id. Petitioner was sentenced to state prison for a term of 43 years to life. Id.

         Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment in a reasoned decision on April 9, 2001. Id. Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on June 20, 2001. Id.; see also California Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket, https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/ dockets.cfm?dist=0&docid=1829416&docno=S097737&requesttoken=NiIwLSIkTkw2WzBZS CM9XEtJUEA0UDxbKiMuWzlSQCAgCg%3D%3D (last updated Sept. 5, 2019 12:12 PM).

         On May 16, 2003, Petition filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“2003 Petition”) in this Court challenging his 1999 conviction and raising the following six claims for relief:

1. The trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to define imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter.
2. The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury on attempted justifiable homicide.
3. The trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALJIC Nos. 2.06 and 2.52.
4. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request that the trial court instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 5.44, and the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct ...

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.