Jesus Corona v. Neil McDowell, 19-56458

Jesus Corona petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after state conviction; the last reasoned state habeas decision denied relief under California’s Dixon rule as raising issues that could have been raised on direct appeal.
Corona argued prosecutorial vindictiveness based on the prosecutor’s modification of charges after he exercised a pretrial procedural right.
The district court denied habeas relief; Corona appealed to the Ninth Circuit seeking review and an expanded certificate of appealability on additional claims (Napue false-testimony, Faretta/pro se revocation, and ineffective assistance of counsel).
The Ninth Circuit held it was precluded from reviewing the vindictiveness claim because the state court decision rested on an independent and adequate state procedural ground (Dixon), and Corona failed to allege inadequacy of that state rule.
The panel also concluded Corona could not show cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default because the vindictiveness claim lacked merit under the controlling federal standards (no presumption of pretrial vindictiveness; no direct or apparent evidence).
The court declined to expand the certificate of appealability and rejected Corona’s uncertified claims: Napue (insufficient showing of falsity/knowledge/materiality), Faretta (judge may terminate self-representation for obstructionist misconduct), and ineffective assistance (breakdown caused by Corona).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural default under California Dixon rule	Corona argued federal review of vindictiveness claim is warranted	State: Dixon bar is an independent, adequate state ground precluding federal review	Court: Review barred by independent adequate state ground; Corona failed to show inadequacy
Prosecutorial vindictiveness (merits)	Prosecutor modified charges to punish exercise of pretrial rights — vindictive prosecution	Prosecutor: No presumption of vindictiveness pretrial; no direct evidence or appearance of vindictiveness	Court: No presumption; Corona failed to show actual or apparent vindictiveness; claim lacks merit; no prejudice to excuse default
Napue false-testimony claim	Testimony was false, prosecutor knew, and the false testimony was material	State: Corona did not show falsity, knowledge, or materiality	Court: Claim fails for lack of showing on falsity, knowledge, and materiality; COA not expanded
Faretta/pro se revocation and ineffective assistance	Revocation of pro se status violated Sixth Amendment; counsel was ineffective	State: Judge may terminate self-representation for obstructionist misconduct; communication breakdown caused by Corona	Court: Revocation permissible under Faretta; ineffective-assistance claim fails because Corona caused the communication breakdown; COA not expanded

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (federal review barred where state court decision rests on independent and adequate state procedural ground)
Ex parte Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756 (Cal. 1953) (California rule barring habeas claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness for pretrial charging decisions)
Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirements for showing actual or apparent prosecutorial vindictiveness)
Napue v. People of State of Ill., 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (prosecutor’s knowing use of false testimony violates due process)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation subject to termination for serious obstructionist misconduct)
Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements required to prevail on a Napue claim)
Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for showing inadequacy of state procedural bar)
United States v. Plascencia-Orozco, 852 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2017) (addressing responsibility for communication breakdowns in ineffective-assistance contexts)