Jones v. Holt
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112233
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Jones was convicted of first-degree murder while armed, second-degree murder while armed, and related weapons offenses in DC Superior Court; conviction upheld on direct appeal by the DC Court of Appeals in 2007.
- Jones filed an untimely pro se motion to recall the mandate with the DC Court of Appeals in 2010, which was denied for timeliness; the motion sought to challenge appellate counsel ineffective assistance.
- Jones pursued collateral relief in DC Superior Court under DCCode §23-110, which was denied in 2008 and affirmed on appeal in 2009.
- Jones filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in June 2010 alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Jones moved for an evidentiary hearing in federal court, relying on Townsend v. Swain, but the court denied the motion.
- The court concluded Jones procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to develop the record in state court and could not show applicable exceptions under §2254(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in federal court | Jones argues Townsend requires a hearing for full fact development | Jones failed to develop facts in state court per Keeney and §2254(e) | No; hearing denied due to procedural default and lack of diligence |
| Whether Keeney and §2254(e) preclude a hearing | Jones asserts oversight in state proceedings entitles him to a hearing | Default bars relief unless exceptions apply | No; default precludes evidentiary hearing under §2254(e) |
| Whether §2254(e)(2) diligence requirement applies to deny relief | Jones did not seek state-court evidentiary development promptly | Govt. argues lack of diligence precludes hearing | Yes; the court denied due to lack of diligence and no valid exception |
| Whether a fundamental miscarriage of justice exception applies | Jones contends miscarriage exception could bypass default | No showing of miscarriage demonstrated in record | No; exception not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Swain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963) (evidentiary hearing required unless state court has reliably found facts)
- Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (no hearing if petitioner failed to develop facts unless cause and prejudice shown)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (U.S. 2000) (diligence required; lack of diligence bars evidentiary hearing under §2254(e)(2))
- Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (exclusive means to raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in DC)