Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00384-5/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: AMENDED

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

 

In Orders dated September 1, 2006, this Court denied Petitioner’s habeas petition

(Dkt. 221) and granted a certificate of appealability with respect to the merits of Claims

20(O), 20(P), and 20(T) (Dkt. 223). On September 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Claim 20(N). (Dkt. 224.) On September 18, 2006,

Petitioner, citing the recent decision in Comer v. Schriro, 463 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2006), filed

a supplement to his motion for reconsideration, requesting that the Court also reconsider its

ruling that Claims 3 and 6 were procedurally barred. (Dkt. 225.) 

In an Order filed simultaneously on this date, the Court has denied Petitioner’s motion

for reconsideration. However, the Court finds, based upon the holding in Comer, that

reasonable jurists could debate its resolution of the procedural status of Claim 6. 

Accordingly,

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

to the following issues:

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 229 Filed 11/08/06 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

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;

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; and

Whether Claim 6, alleging that the trial court violated Petitioner’s rights under

the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to consider all

of his proffered mitigation evidence, is procedurally barred.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 229 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2