Jones
Jones v. Calderon
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Thompson, J.
dissenting.
Because the state court’s decision in this case was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), I respectfully dissent.
The California Court of Appeal, applying the “highly deferential” review required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), concluded that Jones’s counsel’s performance was not deficient. In reaching this conclusion, the state court emphasized that given the existence of three independent sources of information indicating that Jones had only one prior felony conviction that qualified as a “strike,” it was not objectively unreasonable under Strickland for his counsel not to have pursued further investigation. Jones thus failed to meet the standard required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). I would affirm the district court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Petitioner Eugene N. Jones appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Jones was convicted in California state court of the crimes of second degree robbery and attempted car jacking. As Jones had two prior strikes under California’s Three Strikes Law, he was sentenced to 30 years to life for his latest conviction. Jones claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to perform any investigation of the facts of his case before recommending that he reject a seven year plea offer, a recommendation premised on the mistaken understanding that Jones had only one prior strike.
The state court decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law, namely Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Under Strickland , Jones must show that “counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense” 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . Jones demonstrated both.
As to the deficiency prong, there is no doubt that Jones’s attorney’s performance was ineffective. She did not…