Jones v. Lund
Decision Date | 21 October 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 12-CV-2091-LRR,12-CV-2091-LRR |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Parties | MICHAEL NAVARRO JONES, Petitioner, v. MARK LUND, Respondent. |
MICHAEL NAVARRO JONES, Petitioner,
v.
MARK LUND, Respondent.
No. 12-CV-2091-LRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION
October 21, 2014
ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................2
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.............................2
A. Conviction........................................ 2
B. Direct Appeal...................................... 3
C. State Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings.................... 4
D. Federal Habeas Corpus Action........................... 4
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.................................5
IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW.................................6
A. Requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)....................6
B. Exhaustion and Procedural Default.......................9
V. DISCUSSION......................................... 12
A. Prosecutorial Misconduct............................. 12
B. Motion to Suppress................ 14
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel........................ 15
1. Applicable law................................ 15
2. Trial counsel................................. 17
a. Weight of the evidence...................... 17
b. Marital privilege ................18
c. Introduction of the gun................19
d. Allegedly perjured gun testimony................ 20
Page 2
e. Allegedly perjured officer testimony.............. 213. Appellate counsel .............................. 32
f. Interviewing and calling witness to testify.......... 23
g. Removal of problematic jurors................. 24
h. Impeachment of alibi witness.................. 25
i. Jury instruction on "theft"................... 26
j. Objections to prosecutorial misconduct............ 27
i. Attempt to rebut witness................. 28k. Destruction of exculpatory evidence.............. 31
ii. Referring to the petitioner as "the robber"........................ 29
iii. Personal beliefs...................... 30
iv. Using false testimony................... 30
4. Post-conviction relief counsel ...................... 36a. Two dismissed jurors....................... 32
b. Lesser-included offenses..................... 34
c. Conference regarding jury instructions............ 35
VI. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY......................... 37
VII. CONCLUSION........................................ 38
The matter before the court is Michael Navarro Jones's ("the petitioner") "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("petition") (docket no. 1).
On October 1, 2008, in the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County ("Iowa District Court"), Case No. FECR 149154, a jury found the petitioner guilty of first degree robbery (count I), in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.2, and possessing a firearm as a felon (count II), in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26. Post-conviction relief appeal appendix ("PCR appeal app'x") (docket no. 21-20) at 96-97. On October 17, 2008, the petitioner pled guilty to being a habitual offender as to count II in violation of Iowa Code section 902.8. Id. at 104-05. On November 17, 2008, the petitioner was
Page 3
sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment on count I and fifteen years' imprisonment on count II. Id. at 108. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Id.
The petitioner appealed his conviction to the Iowa Court of Appeals on a number of grounds. First, the petitioner asserted that "the [Iowa District Court] erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home after obtaining information during a traffic stop." State v. Jones (Jones I), 778 N.W.2d 218 (Table), 2009 WL 4842500, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009). Second, the petitioner claimed that "his [trial] counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the weight of the evidence in a motion for a new trial and in failing to challenge the veracity of some of the State's witnesses." Id. In the petitioner's pro se brief, the petitioner made additional claims regarding trial counsel's ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct. Direct appeal pro se brief (docket no. 21-2).
On December 17, 2009, the Iowa Court of Appeals rejected the petitioner's arguments that the Iowa District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that trial "counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the weight of the evidence in a motion for new trial." Jones I, 2009 WL 4842500, at *2. With regard to the petitioner's argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the veracity of some of the State's witnesses, the Iowa Court of Appeals concluded that "the record [was] insufficient to address this claim . . . [and] preserve[d] the issue for possible postconviction proceedings." Id. at *3. The Iowa Court of Appeals also declined to address "several other issues" in the petitioner's pro se supplemental brief because they "were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial