1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RUFUS B. JONES,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-35-AW-MAF

SECRETARY, DEP’T OF 

CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Rufus Jones is serving a twenty-year sentence after a jury convicted him of 

attempted murder. He has petitioned for § 2254 habeas relief. After reviewing the 

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11), and considering de novo the issues in 

Jones’s objections (ECF No. 14), I conclude Jones’s petition must be denied. 

Jones presents two claims, one alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and 

one alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. As the magistrate judge explains, 

neither can succeed.

First, as to the ineffective-assistance claim, Jones contends one of his two

attorneys recommended he reject a plea offer. ECF No. 1 at 10. But that attorney 

(the lead trial counsel) testified at the state Rule 3.850 hearing that he recommended

Jones take the deal but that Jones refused. ECF No. 5-8 at 182. The state 

postconviction court accepted that testimony and found that counsel advised Jones 

Case 4:20-cv-00035-AW-MAF Document 15 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3
2

to accept the plea offer. ECF No. 508 at 209 (trial judge in announcing ruling: “I 

accept Mr. Handfield’s [lead counsel’s] testimony that he recommended, as did Mr. 

Akbar [local counsel], that Mr. Jones take the plea.”). 

Jones has not shown that this finding was “an unreasonable determination of 

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(d)(2). Indeed, in neither his petition nor his objection has Jones made any 

effort to overcome the trial court’s finding. Instead, he points to testimony from his 

other trial counsel, who said the lead counsel told Jones’s family that he should reject 

the deal. ECF No. 14 at 2. Regardless of what lead counsel told the family, lead 

counsel told Jones to accept the deal. Or at least that is what the state postconviction 

court found based on the testimony. Jones’s ineffective-assistance claim cannot 

succeed.

Jones’s second claim is that his 20-year sentence violates the Eighth 

Amendment. He contends the sentence is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of 

his case, which he says involved self-defense. But the jury rejected the self-defense 

argument, so Jones’s contention is really that 20 years for attempted murder is more 

than the Eighth Amendment will allow. This was an exceedingly difficult argument

in the first instance, when the Florida courts rejected it. It is even more difficult here, 

where the deferential § 2254 standard applies. As the magistrate judge correctly 

concludes, Jones falls well short of his burden.

Case 4:20-cv-00035-AW-MAF Document 15 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 3
3

The last issue is whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Because I 

conclude Jones has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 

(2000), a COA will be denied.

It is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is adopted and 

incorporated into this order.

2. The clerk will enter a judgment that says “The § 2254 petition is denied 

on the merits without an evidentiary hearing.”

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on December 21, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00035-AW-MAF Document 15 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 3