ERIC JONES V. NEIL MCDOWELL, No. 14-56215 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERIC DSHAUN JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 14-56215 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04283-VBF v. MEMORANDUM* NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Eric Dshaun Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Jones contends that he was induced to plead no contest to California state sexual offenses by the state trial court’s erroneous representation that he would retain the right to appeal pretrial rulings. Reviewing de novo, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013), we agree with the district court that Jones is not entitled to relief. The state appellate court’s rejection of Jones’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 755 (1970). Moreover, Jones’s contention that the district court failed to apply California contract principles in its analysis does not change the result. Because he raises it for the first time in his reply brief, we do not reach Jones’s contention that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (court ordinarily will not consider matters not specifically raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief). AFFIRMED. 2 14-56215
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
