Jones v. Shinn, No. 18-99006 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The State appealed the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner, a state prisoner sentenced to death for the sexual assault, abuse, and felony murder of a four year old girl.
The Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2), which precludes evidentiary hearings on claims that were not developed in state court proceedings, did not prohibit the district court from considering the evidence adduced at the Martinez v. Ryan hearing to determine the merits of petitioner's underlying ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim. The panel explained that when a district court holds an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a petitioner's claim is excused from procedural default under Martinez, it may consider that same evidence to grant habeas relief on the underlying claim.
The panel also held that the district court did not err in determining that the assistance provided by petitioner's counsel was constitutionally deficient where he failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation into whether the victim's injuries were sustained during the time she was with petitioner, and petitioner has demonstrated prejudice due to counsel's failures. In regard to Count Four, this failure only affected the jury's determination that petitioner had acted intentionally or knowingly, but not his underlying guilt on the lesser included offense of reckless misconduct. Therefore, the panel affirmed the grant of habeas relief, but vacated the district court's remedy, remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s grant of federal habeas relief to Barry Lee Jones, a state prisoner who was sentenced to death following his conviction for one count of sexual assault, three counts of child abuse, and felony murder for the death of four-year-old Rachel Gold. The panel held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which precludes evidentiary hearings on claims that were not developed in state court proceedings, did not prohibit the district court from considering the evidence adduced at a hearing pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (concerning cause to excuse procedural default), to determine the merits of Jones’s underlying ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim. The panel also concluded that the district court did not err in determining that (1) the assistance provided by Jones’s counsel was constitutionally deficient because he failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation into whether Rachel’s injuries were sustained during the time she was alone with Jones, and (2) Jones has demonstrated prejudice due to counsel’s failures. The panel therefore generally affirmed the order of the district court that granted Jones habeas relief on the guilt- JONES V. SHINN 3 phase portion of his IAC claim and ordered the State to release him from custody unless it initiated new trial proceedings against him. However, on one of the five counts of conviction, regarding Jones’s failure to seek medical care for the victim (Count Four), the panel concluded that the ineffective assistance only affected the jury’s classification of Jones’s offense as intentional or knowing but not his underlying guilt based on a less culpable mental state, such as recklessness. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s grant of Jones’s habeas petition but vacated in part its remedy. The panel instructed the district court on remand to amend its order to require that the state court either retry Jones on Count Four or resentence him on that count for the lesser included offense of reckless misconduct.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 24, 2020.
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.