Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00384-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danny Lee Jones, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-01-384-PHX-SRB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

The Court has denied Petitioner Danny Lee Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. In the event Petitioner appeals from this Court’s judgment, and in the interests of

conserving scarce Criminal Justice Act funds that might be consumed drafting an application

for a certificate of appealability to this Court, the Court on its own initiative has evaluated

the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not

issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be

established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that the

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 223 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For

procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s

procedural ruling was correct. Id.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate its resolution of the issues set

forth in Claims 20(O), 20(P), and 20(T). The Court therefore grants a certificate of

appealability as to these issues. For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum of

Decision and Order filed simultaneously on this date, the Court declines to issue a certificate

of appealability with respect to the remaining claims and procedural issues.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court grants a Certificate of Appealability as

to the following issues:

Whether Claim 20(O), alleging that Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of

counsel at sentencing was denied by counsel’s failure to secure the

appointment of an additional neurologist or neuropsychologist, fails on the

merits; 

Whether Claim 20(P), alleging that Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of

counsel at sentencing was denied by counsel’s failure to timely move for

neurological and neuropsychological testing, fails on the merits; and

Whether Claim 20(T), alleging that Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of

counsel at sentencing was denied by counsel’s failure to present additional

mitigating witnesses and evidence, fails on the merits.

DATED this 1st day of September, 2006.

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 223 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2