Case ID: f-appx_144/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tobin J. JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-7967.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 29, 2005.
    Decided: Oct. 5, 2005.
    Barbara Lynn Hartung, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Tobin J. Jones appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Jones alleged the following claims:

(1) The magistrate judge applied the wrong standard of review when he held a hearing on Jones’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel did not pursue a “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense;
(2) Defense counsel was ineffective when he withdrew notice of a “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense and proceeded to a jury trial;
(3) Defense counsel was ineffective in preparing for or countering trial testimony from a jail house informant that Jones confessed;
(4) The prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), when it failed to disclose Jones’s confession to the expert who evaluated Jones’s sanity.

By order, we granted a certificate of appealability as to Claims (1), (2), and (4). The Respondent has filed an informal preliminary brief as to those claims, and Jones has filed a reply brief.

After reviewing the parties’ filings and the record on appeal, we conclude Claim (1) is meritless, and we affirm the magistrate judge’s actions as to that claim. As for Claims (2) and (4), we affirm the magistrate judge’s disposition of those claims based upon the reasoning of the magistrate judge. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to Claim (3) based upon the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Jones v. Johnson, No. CA-03-466-3 (E.D.Va. Nov. 8, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART