Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
John Norris
HANKS
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Rape
Number of victims: 2 +
Date of murders: 1966 / 1980
Date
of arrest:September 1982
Date of birth: 1947
Victims profile: His
sister in law / Arnetta Oakes, 30
Method of murder: Stabbing
with knife
/ Strangulation
Location: California, USA
Status: Sentenced to life in prison without possibility of
parole in 1986
A native of San Francisco, Hanks fatally stabbed his sister-in-law in 1966 and was convicted of second-degree murder, serving five and a half years in prison before he was freed on parole.
On March 3, 1977, he was arrested for questioning in the murder of Patricia Crawford, but charges were dismissed for lack of evidence when his ex-wife refused to testify in court.
On June 21, 1980, the strangled body of a Palo Alto woman -- 30-year-old Arnetta Oakes -- was found in a creek bed near San Jose. Police again suspected Hanks, but it would take three years for them to make their case.
In September 1982, Hanks was picked up by Seattle police and charged with twice assaulting his wife choking her unconscious each time. She testified that these were only the most serious of seven recent attacks, and detectives widened their probe, uncovering new evidence that named Hanks as a close acquaintance of Arnetta Oakes, in California.
Fourteen months elapsed before he was indicted on another murder charge, and Hanks was philosophical about the case. If convicted, he declared, he would provide detectives with the details of "numerous other murders."
San Francisco homicide investigators now believe Hanks is responsible for eight known slayings in their city.
Michael Newton - An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial
Killers
51 F.3d 280
John Norris HANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
R.G. BORG, Warden, Folsom State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 94-15625.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 1995.*
Decided March 27, 1995.
Before: SNEED, POOLE, and BRUNETTI,
Circuit Judges.
John Norris Hanks, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the
district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus
petition challenging his conviction for first degree murder with special
circumstance. The district court dismissed two of Hanks's claims without
prejudice for failure to exhaust, and found Hanks's other claims to be
without merit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253. We review
de novo a district court's denial of habeas relief. James v. Borg, 24
F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 333 (1994). We vacate
and remand.
Generally, a state prisoner must exhaust available remedies in state
court before seeking federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b);
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 516 (1982). A claim is considered exhausted
when it has fairly been presented to the state's highest court. See
Schwendeman v. Wallenstein, 971 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.1992), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 975 (1993). A district court must dismiss without
prejudice a "mixed" habeas petition containing both exhausted and
unexhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at 522; Ortberg v. Moody, 961 F.2d
135, 138 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 225 (1992).
Hanks was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstance
and sentenced to prison for life without possibility of parole in 1986.
Hanks appealed to the state court of appeals which affirmed the judgment
and to the California Supreme Court, which denied review. In his federal
habeas corpus petition, Hanks raised the following grounds: (1)
prosecutorial misconduct; (2) insufficient evidence; (3) improper jury
instructions; and (4) admission of improper evidence, including evidence
of past spousal abuse, past homicides, damage to defendant's automobile,
and testimony about defendant's state of mind. The district court
dismissed the first two claims for failure to exhaust state remedies1
but went on to reach the merits of Hanks's remaining claims.
Because Hanks did not include two of the claims in his state appeal,
he has failed to exhaust available state court remedies. See Guizar v.
Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir.1988). Therefore, the district court
should have dismissed Hanks's petition because it contained both
exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522; Guizar, 843
F.2d at 138.
Accordingly, the district court order denying Hanks's habeas
petition is remanded with instructions to enter an order dismissing the
petition for federal habeas relief without prejudice.
