Steven Jones v. Eric Arnold

MEMORANDUM *

Steven Allen Jones appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Jones’s claim that his due process rights were violated when he was convicted on the basis of uncorroborated accomplice testimony.

The district court did not err in denying Jones’s due process claim. Jones argues that his due process rights were violated because he was arbitrarily deprived of his state law rights under section 1111 of the California Penal Code, which provides that a defendant cannot be convicted based on accomplice testimony unless the testimony is sufficiently corroborated. This argument fails, because the California Court of Appeal found that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated under state law, and this court may not consider any question of state substantive law. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Jones does not argue that there is a federal right to corroboration; rather, his constitutional *675 claim depends entirely on the assertion that there was not sufficient evidence to satisfy the California statute. Because the state court…

concurring in the result.

I concur in the result reached by the majority, but write separately because the majority fails to comply with AEDPA in resolving Jones’s due process claim.

In his direct appeal before the California Court of Appeal, Jones raised two claims: first, that he had been convicted on the basis of uncorroborated accomplice testimony in violation of section 1111 of the California Penal Code; and second, that this error of state law arbitrarily deprived him of a state created liberty interest in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The California Court of Appeal held that there was no error of state law because there was sufficient evidence at trial to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice. It did not address Jones’s due process argument. On federal habeas review, Jones argues only that the state court erred in rejecting his due process claim.

Under AEDPA, we must determine whether the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Jones’s federal due process claim was “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…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN ALLEN JONES, No. 12-17825

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00196-MCE-

TJB

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Acting Warden and MEMORANDUM*

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 10, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Steven Allen Jones appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas

petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Jones’s claim

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. that his due process rights were violated when he was convicted on the basis of

uncorroborated accomplice testimony.

The district court did not err in denying Jones’s due process claim. Jones

argues…