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-EL v. Bishop

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 26, 2018

WENDALL ERNEST JONES-EL, #319885 Petitioner,
v.
FRANK BISHOP, et al. Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Case History

         On December 4, 2017, the court received a self-represented 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus relief, dated November 29, 2017, raising a collateral attack on Wendall Ernest Jones-El's 2004 convictions in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland.

         Jones-El raised the following claims:

• trial court error in coercing the jury into rendering a verdict;
• Jones-El was denied his right to be present at all critical stages of trial and trial counsel denied Jones-El effective assistance in failing to secure Jones-El's presence;
• Jones-El was denied his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf and trial counsel denied Jones-El effective assistance in failing to ensure a valid waiver;
• Jones-El was denied effective assistance when counsel failed to ask for curative action as to prosecutor's efforts to inject prejudicial information through questioning, in defiance of trial court's admonishment to refrain from such action;
• trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to State's leading direct and re-direct examination of witnesses Joseph Hardy, Davon Brown, Sean Vincent, and Loretta Long;
• trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present any argument at hearing in support of defense suppression motions; and
• the cumulative effect of trial counsel's errors denied Jones-El his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

ECF No. 1, pp. 6-17.

         On January 23, 2018, Respondents provided a court-ordered response, arguing that the Petition should be dismissed as successive. ECF No. 5.

         Background and ...


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.