United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. Grand Mag. Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
E. LEVY United States District Judge.
T. Jones, (“Petitioner”), confined at the
Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, filed
a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his
conviction of assault with intent to rob while armed, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.89.
the present petition constitutes a “second or
successive petition” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A), the matter is transferred to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals so that Petitioner may seek
permission to proceed.
was originally charged with first-degree felony murder and
assault with intent to rob while armed. Petitioner and
co-defendant Larry Hughes were tried jointly before a jury in
the Detroit Recorder's Court. Petitioner and Hughes were
found not guilty of first-degree felony murder but were found
guilty of assault with intent to rob while armed. A third
co-defendant, Steven Cory Cojocar, was tried separately and
convicted of first-degree felony murder, assault with intent
to rob while armed, and felony-firearm. A fourth defendant,
Chris Branscum, was acquitted of all charges at a separate
exhausting his state court remedies, petitioner filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on the
merits. Jones v. Renico, No. 03-CV-73246-DT (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 22, 2004), aff'd No. 04-1615 (6th
Cir. Aug. 5, 2005); cert. den. sub. nom. Jones v.
Michigan, 547 U.S. 1006 (2006); rehearing den.
547 U.S. 1144 (2006).
has since been denied permission to file a second petition
for writ of habeas corpus by the Sixth Circuit. In re
Jones, No. 11-2096 (6th Cir. June 28, 2012).
now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following ground:
Petitioner Jones' [sic] was denied his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel and his Sixth Amendment right to
cross-examination, specifically where trial counsel was
absent during jury deliberations where one of the jurors
visited the crime scene becoming an unsworn witness against
Petitioner Jones, and trial counsel was absent at this
critical stage and at the return of the verdict, thus denying
Petitioner Jones his 6th Amendment rights guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment Constitution.
(Dkt. 1 at 12.)
already filed a prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging his conviction for assault with intent to rob
individual seeking to file a second or successive habeas
petition must first ask the appropriate court of appeals for
an order authorizing the district court to consider the
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A);
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641
(1998). This screening function is performed by the Courts of
Appeal. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996).
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA), this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider
Petitioner's successive petition ...