N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

R OB ER T R IC HAR D JONES, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,

v. JASON ELLIS, W a rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-35318

D.C . No. 1:09-c v-00132-M HW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho M ike l H. W illia

m s, M a gistra

t e Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2014 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : C LIFTON, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED

DEC 03 2014
M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disp o s i t io n i s not a ppropria te for p ublic a tion a nd is not pre c e de n t e xc e pt a s provide d by

9th C i r. R . 36-3.
** A f t er ex am i n in g t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s b r i e f a n d t h e a p p e l l at e r eco r d, t h e p an el una nim ously c onc lude s tha t ora l a rgum e nt would not m a te ria lly a ssist the de te rm i na tion of this a

ppe a l. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(f).R obe rt R ic h a rd Jone s a

ppe a ls the distric t court’ s dism issa l o f his 28 U.S.C

. § 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n for a w rit o f ha be a s c orpus. W e ha ve j urisdic tion unde r 2 8 U.S.C

. § § 1291 a nd 2253, 1 a n d a ffirm

. 1. W e re v ie w the la st re a sone d sta te c ourt de c ision, se e Van Ly nn v . Farmon , 347 F.3d 735, 738 (9th C ir. 2003), to de te rm in e i f it wa s e ithe r “ c ontra ry to, or involve d an u nre a sona

ble a pplic a tion of, c le a rly e sta b l ishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm i ne d by the Supre m e Co u r t o f the Unite d Sta te s,” 2 8 U.S.C

. § 2254(d)(1), or

“ wa s b a s e d on a n unre a sona ble de te rm ina t ion of the fa c ts i n light of the e vide nc e pre s e nte d in the Sta t e c ourt proc e e ding,” 2 8 U.S.C

. § 2254(d) (2). “ This is a diffic ult
to m e e t a nd highly de fe re n tia l sta nda rd for e va lua ting s ta te -c ourt rulings, whic h de m a nds tha t sta

te -c o u rt de c isions be give n t he b e n e fit of the d o u bt.” C ulle n v . Pinholste r , 131 S. C t. 1388, 1398 (2011) (inte rna l q u ota tion m a rks an d c ita

tions

om i tte d). 2. The Ida ho C ourt of Appe a ls’ re je c tio n o f J o n e s’ c la im unde r N apue v . Illinois , 3 60 U.S. 264 (1959), wa s not unreas o nable

. A c onvic tion m a y not be obt ai n ed “ through use of fa lse e vide nc e , known to b e s uc h by re pre se n ta tive s of the Sta t e . . . . T he sa m e re su l t obta ins whe n t he Sta te , a lthough not solic iting fa lse

1 W ith the pa

rtie s’ c onse nt, a m a gistra

te judge c onduc te d a ll proc e e dings be low. Se e 28 U.S.C

. § 636(c )(1); se e also 28 U.S.C

. § 636(c )(3) (pr ov i d i ng for a ppe lla te jurisdic tion). 2ev i d en ce , a llows it to go unc orre c te d whe n it a ppe a rs.” Id. a t 269 (inte rna l c ita tio n s
om i tte d). Jone s a rgue d tha t the rule i n Na p u e wa s viola

te d b e c a u se a prose c ution witne s s l ie d whe n te stify ing tha t he ha d not fina l iz e d a de a l with p rose c utors. B ut the

re c o rd c onfirm s tha

t the witne ss ha d not y e t fina liz e d a de a l with the prose c utors. 3. The Ida ho c ourt’ s re

je c tion o f J o n es ’ c la im unde r Brady v . Mary land , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a lso wa s not unre a sona ble

. Th e “ su p p r ession by the prose c ution of

e vide nc e fa vora

ble t o a n a c c use d upon re que st viola tes d u e p r o c e ss whe re the

e vide nc e is m a te ria l e i the r to guilt or to punishm e nt.” Id. a t 87. Suppre sse d e vide nc e is m a t e ria l if “ ‘ the re is a re a sona ble proba bility tha t, ha d t

he e vide nc e be e n disc lose d
to t he d e fe n se , the re s ult of the proc e e ding would ha v e be e n diffe re nt.’ ” Stric k le r v . Gre e ne , 527 U.S. 263, 2 80 (1999) (quoting Unite d State s v . Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). Alt h o u g h t he inform a tion a bout the w itne ss’ s pa

role h e a ring should ha ve be e n disc lose d , see Giglio v . Unite d State s , 405 U.S. 150, 154-55 (1972), the Ida h o
c ourt wa s not unre a sona

ble i n c onc luding tha t the re wa s no re a sona ble proba bility tha t disc losure would ha

ve c ha nge d the outc om e . 4 . T he Ida ho C ourt of Appe a ls wa s a lso not u nre a sona ble in de ny ing Jone s’ ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e o f c ounse l c la im

. A de fe nda nt a sse rting ine ffe c t ive a ssis t an ce of c o unse l m

ust s how both tha t “ c o unse l m a de e rrors so se rious tha t c ounse l wa s not f u n ctioning a s the ‘ c ounse l’ gua ra nte e d

. . . by

the Sixth Am e ndm e nt,” a nd “ tha t the
3de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e pre judic e d the de fe nse . T his re quire s showing tha t c ounse l’ s
e rrors w e re so se rious a s to de prive the d e fe nda nt of a fa ir t

ria l , a t ria l whose re sult is

re lia ble .” Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S

. 6 68, 687 (1984). W i thout both, “ i t

c a nnot be sa id tha t the c onvic tion

. . . re sult e d from a bre a kdown in the a dve rsa ry proc e s s tha t re n de rs the re sult unre lia ble .” Id. The Ida ho c ourt re a sona bly c onc lude d tha t Jone s fa ile d to show tha t c ounse l wa s d ef i ci ent i n c ross-e x a m i ning the prose c ution’ s witne ss o r tha t a diff er e nt e xa m ina tion w ould like ly ha v e c ha nge d the

re sult. 2 AFFIRM E D.

2 The res p o n d en t ’s m o t i o n to strike Jone s ’ Exc e rpts of R e c ord V olum e III is gra n te d. “ Sa ve in unusua l c i rc um sta nc e s,” this c ourt c onside rs “ only t he distric t c ourt re c o rd on a

ppe a l .” Low r

y v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003).

4