Jones v. Johnson , 144 F. App'x 358 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7967
    TOBIN J. JONES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE   JOHNSON,    Director,     Department     of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-03-466-3)
    Submitted:   July 29, 2005                    Decided:   October 5, 2005
    Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Barbara Lynn Hartung, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Virginia
    Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Tobin   J.   Jones   appeals   the   district    court’s   orders
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    Jones alleged the following claims:
    (1)    The magistrate judge applied the wrong standard of
    review when he held a hearing on Jones’s claim that
    he received ineffective assistance of counsel when
    counsel did not pursue a “not guilty by reason of
    insanity” defense;
    (2)    Defense counsel was ineffective when he withdrew
    notice of a “not guilty by reason of insanity”
    defense and proceeded to a jury trial;
    (3)    Defense counsel was ineffective in preparing for or
    countering trial testimony from a jail house
    informant that Jones confessed;
    (4)    The prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
     (1963), when it failed to disclose Jones’s
    confession to the expert who evaluated Jones’s
    sanity.
    By order, we granted a certificate of appealability as to Claims
    (1),   (2),    and    (4).     The   Respondent     has    filed   an   informal
    preliminary brief as to those claims, and Jones has filed a reply
    brief.
    After reviewing the parties’ filings and the record on
    appeal, we conclude Claim (1) is meritless, and we affirm the
    magistrate judge’s actions as to that claim.              As for Claims (2) and
    (4), we affirm the magistrate judge’s disposition of those claims
    based upon the reasoning of the magistrate judge.                   We deny a
    certificate of appealability and dismiss as to Claim (3) based upon
    the reasoning of the magistrate judge.             See Jones v. Johnson, No.
    - 2 -
    CA-03-466-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2004).               We dispense with oral
    argument   because   the   facts   and     legal   issues   are   adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7967

Citation Numbers: 144 F. App'x 358

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/5/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023