Sudan Jones v. Debra Dexter , 609 F. App'x 483 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUDAN R. JONES, No. 13-56527
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00408-CBM-
PLA
v.
DEBRA DEXTER, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 7, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, CANBY, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Sudan Jones appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his habeas petition
challenging his convictions for two counts of rape and two counts of lewd acts
upon a child. Jones claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
because his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present his alibi
defense, discouraged him from testifying, and presented an inadequate medical
defense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a
district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859
(9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Based on a careful review of the record, we conclude Jones’s counsel’s
performance was not constitutionally deficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Even assuming Jones’s counsel was deficient, Jones has not
shown the result of the proceedings would have differed but for his counsel’s
unprofessional errors. See id. at 694. The evidence against Jones at trial, including
the testimony of Sade M., Andrea Mosley, Samuel Mosley, Makisha Mosley, Ida
Jordan, Jasmine Stiger, and Dr. Ticson, was compelling. Because “fairminded
jurists could disagree,” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011), as to
whether Jones’s counsel’s alleged deficiencies “[did] not amount to prejudicial
ineffective assistance of counsel,” the California Court of Appeal reasonably
rejected Jones’s IAC claim. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
AFFIRMED.
2