Jones v. Holt, 893 F. Supp. 2d 185

Jones, a DC inmate, challenges his 2001 DC Superior Court convictions in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
He sought an evidentiary hearing; the court denied finding § 2254(e)(2) barred such a hearing.
Jones challenged multiple convictions and related weapon offenses; direct appeal upheld in 2007.
During collateral review, DC Superior Court denied a § 23-110 motion (ineffective assistance of trial counsel) in 2008, affirmed in 2009.
Jones moved to recall the mandate in the DC Court of Appeals in 2010; the court denied in a one-sentence order.
The petition was filed in 2010; the court ultimately dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
whether 2254(e)(2) barred an evidentiary hearing	Jones contends the DC Court’s recall denial was procedurally defaulted, thus an evidentiary hearing is allowed	Holt argues § 2254(e)(2) bars hearings where state-court record not developed due to petitioner’s lack of diligence	Court held § 2254(e)(2) does not bar a hearing here due to potential merits; however other § 2254(d) limits apply
whether the DC Court of Appeals denied the recall on the merits	the denial was merits-based, not procedural, affecting federal review	denial may be procedural or merits-based; record insufficient to determine which	Court found the DC Court of Appeals likely denied on the merits, triggering § 2254(d) review limits
whether Jones’ ineffective assistance claims could succeed under § 2254(d)	appellate counsel failed to raise claims that trial counsel was ineffective for intoxication defense and for firearm-merger issues	claims lack specific facts; even if raised, outcomes would be found reasonable under Strickland and precedent	Court denied relief; Strickland-based claims fail under a highly deferential, doubly-deferential standard

Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (doubly deferential review for Strickland claims under § 2254(d)(1))
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (unreasonable application of federal law standard in § 2254(d)(1))
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits review to record before state court when denying on the merits)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (diligence requirement to develop factual record for § 2254(e)(2))
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (independent and adequate state grounds; presumption of merits rather than procedural default)
Jimenez v. Walker, 458 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption analysis for state-ground adequacy; effect on federal review)
Nixon v. United States, 730 A.2d 145 (1999) (merger limitation for firearm charges when applicable to multiple victims)
Stevenson v. United States, 760 A.2d 1034 (DC 2000) (limits of Nixon to merger; when separate acts occur, merger may not apply)
Head v. United States, 626 A.2d 1382 (DC 1993) (leniency to pro se movants regarding time deadlines)
Watson v. United States, 536 A.2d 1056 (DC 1987) (recall of mandate considerations in DC Court of Appeals)