Jeffrey Jones v. Jeff Premo

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Jeffrey Jones appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

We review the denial of a habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 de novo. Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.2004). We cannot grant a habeas petition unless the state court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “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)(1) — (2).

The Oregon Court of Appeals refused to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999), to Jones’s challenge under the Sixth Amendment and held that the confession of Jones’s accomplice was admissible at trial. We have previously held that Lilly was clearly established federal law. See Forn v. Hornung, 343 F.3d 990 , 995 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003).

Under then-controlling Supreme Court precedent, out-of-court statements not within a firmly rooted hearsay exception were inadmissible…