Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should * not be publishe d and is not pre cedent except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 05- 41136 Su m m ar y Cal endar

J E S S IE JO N E S , III Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. N A T HA N I E L Q U A R T E R MA N , D I R E C T O R , T E XA S D E P A R T ME N T OF CR I M I NAL J US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DI VI S I ON R espon den t
- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 02- C V

- 673

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Jessi e Jon es, I II , T e x as pri soner # 905 756 , w as convi ct ed by a j u ry of at t em pt ed c api t alm urde ran d w as s ent enc ed byt he t r i alc our tt o s eve nt y- f ive year s of

i m pri so nm ent
. The di st r i c tc our tdeni ed J on es’ s 28 U
. S. C

. § 2254 peti t i on , concl u di n g i n rel evan tpart t h a t J on es’ s asser t i on t h at t ri alcoun sel
r e n d e r e d in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y fa ilin g to g iv e J o n e s p r o p e r a d v ic e th a t w o u ld h ave en abled hi m t o m ak e an i n f orm ed deci si on w h et h er t o h ave t h e t ri alcourt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 05- 41136

2 orthe j ury as se ss pu ni shm entw as pr oc edur al l y de faul t ed. Jo nes c ont ends t hat th i s cl a i m , raised f or th e fi rst ti m e in a su p p l em en t t o J on es ’ s fi rst state pos t c onvi c t i on appl i c at i on, w as notpr oc edur al l y de faul t ed. Becaus e t he Texas C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a l s “ d e n i e d ” J o n e s ’s f i r s tp o s t c o n v i c t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n , i td id notex pl i c i t l y re l y o n a s t at e pr oc edur alr ul e t o a dj udi c at e J ones ’ s i nef fec t ive a s s i s t a n c e cla im

. S ee Mi l ler v. Joh n son , 2 0 0 F .3d 2 7 4 , 2 8 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); G lov erv. Ca in , 128 F
. 3d 900 , 902 (5t h C i r. 1 997 )

. M oreover, there i s no evi den ce t h at Texa s c ou rt s c on si st en t l y h ol d that supp l em en t s t o a pen di n g f i rst pos t c onvi c t i on appl i c at i on ar e suc c es sive, and no r ul e r equi r es s uch a di sm i ss al in a n o n c a p ita l ca s e . S ee Mart i n v. Maxey , 9 8 F .3d 8 4 4 , 8 4 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). Th e r es pondent s c ont end f ort he f i r stt i m e o n appealt hatJo nes ’ s § 2 254 pe t i t i o n i s unt i m e l y be c aus e J o ne s fai l e d t o no t i f y t he d i s t r i c tc o ur tt hatt he T e xa s Cour to f

Cr i m i nalAppe al s ha d r ul e d o n hi s s e c o nd s t at e po s t convic t i on appl i c at i on be f

or e t he di st r i c tc our taw ar ded a stay i n t he f ede r alpr oc ee di ngs s o t hat Jo ne s c o ul d e xha us thi s s t at e r e m e di e s t hr o ugh t hats e c o nd a ppl i c at i o n. The r e s po nde nt s a l t e r nat ive l y as s e r tt hatt he o ne - ye arpe r i o d c o nt i nue d t o r un w hen Jones fai l ed t o no t i fy th e di st r i c tc our tof t he Texas C our tof

C r i m i nal A pp eal s’ s r u l i n g w i t h i n t h i rt y da ys. B ecau se t h e res pon den tha s ra ised t h ese c l ai m s f

ort he f

i r stt i m e o n appea la n d Jones di d nothave not i c e o ran opp ort u n i t y t o respond t o t h i s assert i on , w e decl i n e t o exerci se any j u ri sdi ct i on to co n s id e rth e cla im a t t h is tim e . S ee Fi s he rv . Te x as , 16 9 F
. 3 d 29 5 , 30 0

– 0 2 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 99 9)

. Con s e que nt l y, t he j udg m e nt o f t he di s t r i c t c o ur ti s VA CA TE D a nd t he c as e i s R E M A N D E D f orf urt herpr oc ee di ngs i n l i ghtof t hi s r ul i ng.