James Jones v. Steve Franke

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner James Louis Jones appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury conviction of murder. We affirm.

Jones cites Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), to support his claim for relief, but his argument stretches Martinez beyond its bounds in multiple ways. Perhaps most importantly, he failed to demonstrate that his underlying claim was a substantial one, as required under Martinez to overcome a procedural default. Id. at 1318 .

In particular, the contention that evidence that “Jones still lived in the home with his wife” would have had an impact, on the jury’s verdict is too implausible. The specific details of what happened— that Jones had stayed with relatives for a few days after he and his wife had a fight — were not in dispute. That he may not have perceived his departure as permanent was neither seriously contested or important to the verdict.

Instead, the evidence strongly supported the. conclusion that Jones was not surprised by the discovery of another man when he returned to the house. The original fight was over his belief that his wife had something…