Robert Jones v. Jason Ellis

MEMORANDUM

Robert Richard Jones appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and affirm.

1. We review the last reasoned state court decision, see Van Lynn v. Farmon, 347 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir.2003), to determine if it was either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). “This is a difficult to meet and highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2. The Idaho Court of Appeals’ rejection of Jones’ claim under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), was not unreasonable. A conviction may not be obtained “through use of false evidence,…