To see the status of Phillips appeal through Circuit Court of Maryland
CLICK HERE
I. ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL
In its Memorandum and Opinion and Order, dated October 29, 2007, the Circuit Court denied all claims raised in Applicant Jones’ Second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Jones accordingly applies for leave to present the following claims on appeal:
A. Did the Circuit Court err by resolving the claims in Applicant Jones’ Second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief without affording him an evidentiary hearing?
1. Did the circumstances supporting Jones’ post-conviction claims entitle him to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of Maryland law?
2. Was the oral argument afforded Applicant Jones to oppose the State’s motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition an appropriate proceeding for the Circuit Court to dispose of Applicant Jones’ post-conviction claims on the grounds that the claims were not supported by credible evidence?
3. Did the Circuit Court conduct proceedings on the Applicant’s Post- Conviction Petition in a manner that denied him due process of law, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
B. Did the Circuit Court err by concluding that Jones’ proffered statement by Jerome Beacon supporting evidence allegedly not disclosed in his original trial by the prosecution to defense counsel failed as a matter of law to meet the requirement of materiality under the principles enunciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)?
C. Did the Circuit Court err by rejecting Applicant Jones’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel respecting trial counsel’s failure to investigate and raise the issues presented by the Beacon statement on the ground that the exact same claim had been presented in an earlier post-conviction proceeding that antedated the discovery of the Beacon evidence?
D. Did the Circuit Court err by summarily rejecting Applicant’s proffer of the Beacon statement as newly discovered evidence as the basis for post-conviction relief, without considering the availability of such relief as the Court might otherwise consider under the Maryland Rules?
E. Did the Circuit Court err by rejecting Applicant Jones’ claim respecting the improper jury instruction on transferred intent based upon alleged prior articulation of the issue where Jones had offered evidence in the Circuit Court that presented special circumstances limiting his ability fully to litigate the issue previously?
CLICK HERE
I. ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL
In its Memorandum and Opinion and Order, dated October 29, 2007, the Circuit Court denied all claims raised in Applicant Jones’ Second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Jones accordingly applies for leave to present the following claims on appeal:
A. Did the Circuit Court err by resolving the claims in Applicant Jones’ Second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief without affording him an evidentiary hearing?
1. Did the circumstances supporting Jones’ post-conviction claims entitle him to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of Maryland law?
2. Was the oral argument afforded Applicant Jones to oppose the State’s motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition an appropriate proceeding for the Circuit Court to dispose of Applicant Jones’ post-conviction claims on the grounds that the claims were not supported by credible evidence?
3. Did the Circuit Court conduct proceedings on the Applicant’s Post- Conviction Petition in a manner that denied him due process of law, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
B. Did the Circuit Court err by concluding that Jones’ proffered statement by Jerome Beacon supporting evidence allegedly not disclosed in his original trial by the prosecution to defense counsel failed as a matter of law to meet the requirement of materiality under the principles enunciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)?
C. Did the Circuit Court err by rejecting Applicant Jones’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel respecting trial counsel’s failure to investigate and raise the issues presented by the Beacon statement on the ground that the exact same claim had been presented in an earlier post-conviction proceeding that antedated the discovery of the Beacon evidence?
D. Did the Circuit Court err by summarily rejecting Applicant’s proffer of the Beacon statement as newly discovered evidence as the basis for post-conviction relief, without considering the availability of such relief as the Court might otherwise consider under the Maryland Rules?
E. Did the Circuit Court err by rejecting Applicant Jones’ claim respecting the improper jury instruction on transferred intent based upon alleged prior articulation of the issue where Jones had offered evidence in the Circuit Court that presented special circumstances limiting his ability fully to litigate the issue previously?
bravenet.com