Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-22-11087/USCOURTS-ca11-22-11087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General, State of Florida
Appellee
John Hayward
Appellant
Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11087

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JOHN HAYWARD, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00479-PGB-GJK

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 1 of 23
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Hayward, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. We granted a certificate of appealability on 

the issue of whether Hayward’s trial counsel provided ineffective 

assistance by failing to adequately impeach the victim when she 

testified at trial. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and 

the record, we affirm.

I.

After Hayward’s daughter, J.B., accused him of sexually 

abusing her, the State of Florida charged him with one count of 

sexual battery on a person less than 12 years old and two counts of 

lewd or lascivious touching of a person less than 12 years old by a 

person at least 18 years old. In this section, we review the proceedings in Hayward’s criminal case and discuss his post-conviction proceedings in state and federal court. 

A.

In his Florida criminal case, Hayward pleaded not guilty and 

proceeded to trial. He was initially represented by a public defender. He later retained attorney Peter Zies, who represented him 

through trial. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 2 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 3

The State’s primary witness at trial was J.B.1 She testified 

that in November 2005, when she was ten years old, she and her 

family—her father, Hayward; her mother, Christina Hayward; a 

younger brother; and three younger sisters—moved from Maine 

to Florida, where they lived for approximately a year. While in 

Florida, the family lived in a trailer. J.B. shared a bedroom with her 

younger brother; he slept on the top bunk while she slept on the 

bottom bunk or the floor. 

J.B. testified that on multiple occasions while the family 

lived in Florida, Hayward entered her bedroom at night and “sexually touched” her. Doc. 17-2 at 207.2 On some nights when the 

abuse occurred, J.B.’s brother was sleeping in the top bunk. But on 

other nights, he slept in a different bedroom with their mother. 

J.B. described how Hayward committed the sexual abuse. 

After entering the bedroom, he climbed on top of J.B. He pinned 

her legs down and forced her to be quiet. He touched her vagina 

either with his penis or his hands. During these incidents, his penis 

did not enter her vagina. During some of the incidents, Hayward 

took her clothes off; other times, he left them on. On the occasions 

when his penis touched her vagina, J.B. was wearing her pajamas. 

She was unsure whether Hayward was wearing clothes during the

incidents because it was dark in her room. But even in the dark 

1 The State’s other witnesses were a Florida law enforcement officer who investigated J.B.’s allegations and a nurse practitioner from Maine who examined J.B. 

2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 3 of 23
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

room, J.B. was able to distinguish between when Hayward touched 

her vagina with his hands and his penis. 

J.B. testified that Hayward told her not to tell anyone about 

the abuse. She did not report the abuse while the family lived in 

Florida because she was afraid of Hayward, who stored guns in a 

gun case in the family’s trailer. She told the jury, “I was afraid that 

he might come after me.” Id. at 215. 

After living in Florida for about one year, Christina moved 

J.B. and her siblings back to Maine. Upon returning to Maine, they 

lived in a shelter for abused women. About a week after they returned to Maine, J.B. told Christina that Hayward had raped her in 

Florida. J.B. testified that she finally told her mother about the 

abuse because her mother had threatened to send her back to Florida to stay with Hayward.

Christina, in turn, reported J.B.’s abuse allegations to social 

workers and law enforcement. As part of the investigation into the 

abuse, J.B. gave statements to law enforcement officers and child 

welfare officials in both Florida and Maine. While in Maine, she 

underwent a medical exam. And she later sat for a deposition in 

which she described the abuse.

Within a few months of when J.B. reported the abuse, Christina and Hayward reunited, and the family moved back to Florida. 

In Florida, J.B. was interviewed by a caseworker from Florida’s Department of Children and Families. In this interview, J.B. denied 

that Hayward had sexually abused her. At trial, J.B. told the jury 

that she lied to the caseworker when she said that no sexual abuse 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 4 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 5

occurred. She stated that Hayward; Christina; and her uncle, Norman Hayward, had pressured her to say that there was no abuse, 

telling her that unless she recanted her allegations, she and her siblings would be separated and never see each other again.

Zies cross examined J.B. at length. He asked questions suggesting it was impossible that Hayward had repeatedly sexually assaulted J.B. while her brother was asleep in a bunk above them. 

Zies asked J.B. whether she remained quiet during the incidents. 

J.B. answered that on some occasions she tried to loudly tell her 

father no, but he smacked her in the face. 

Zies also questioned J.B. about the statement she gave to the 

Florida caseworker denying that any sexual abuse occurred. Although J.B. testified that her family pressured her to deny that any 

abuse occurred, she admitted on cross examination that she was 

alone with the caseworker when she recanted the abuse allegations. 

Zies then brought up that after the family left Florida, J.B.’s 

parents had reunited. He asked J.B. whether “[a]nything else happen[ed]” after the family left Florida. Id. at 240. J.B. hesitated and 

then answered “[n]o.” Id.

The prosecutor requested a sidebar conference. She told the 

judge that Hayward had a separate criminal case pending in Maine 

arising out of allegations of abuse that occurred while the family 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 5 of 23
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

lived there.3 She explained that she had instructed J.B. not to testify 

“about anything that happened in Maine.” Id. at 241. The prosecutor was concerned that J.B. might have hesitated and answered no 

because of the instruction not to talk about what occurred in 

Maine. The prosecutor requested a short recess to speak with J.B. 

and tell her that “if something happened” after the family returned 

to Maine, she needed to say so. Id.

After a short recess, Zies resumed his cross examination. He 

asked J.B. whether “any further sexual abuse” occurred after the 

family left Florida and returned to Maine. Id. at 243. J.B. answered, 

“No, sir.” Id.

Zies also questioned J.B. about her testimony that she feared 

Hayward because he had guns in the trailer. Zies asked J.B. where 

the gun cabinet was located. She answered that it was in Hayward’s 

bedroom. 

The cross examination also covered statements J.B. made 

during an interview with a law enforcement officer in Maine. Zies

asked J.B. whether she remembered telling the officer that “sexual 

contact had taken place twice” in Florida. Id. at 247. She answered, 

“[y]es.” Id. at 248. He then asked whether she recalled later in the 

3 The record does not reflect whether the Maine criminal case arose out of 

abuse that allegedly occurred when the family first lived in Maine or after they 

returned from Florida. In interviews with law enforcement, J.B. reported that 

Hayward had been sexually abusing her since she was six years old, meaning 

she maintained that the abuse began before the family moved to Florida.

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 6 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 7

same interview saying that sexual contact occurred only “one time 

in Florida.” Id. J.B. responded that she did not recall saying that.

The prosecutor requested another sidebar. She argued that 

Zies had mischaracterized J.B.’s statements in the interview. She 

explained that the transcript from the interview showed that J.B. 

had told the officer that Hayward had “anally penetrated her two 

times up in Maine”4 but also reported that Hayward had “touched 

[her] privates . . . more than 20 times.” Id. at 249–50. 

The court allowed the prosecutor to conduct a redirect examination. On redirect, J.B. clarified that in the interview with the 

Maine officer, she reported that Hayward had touched her private 

areas more than 20 times. 

Zies then asked to cross-examine J.B. again about the interview with the officer in Maine. The court denied the request, stating the subject had “already been brought out on cross-examination” and Zies “already had that testimony or similar testimony before this jury.” Id. at 260–61. 

After the prosecution rested, Hayward called several witnesses to testify in his defense. The witnesses included Christina, as 

well as Norman and Norman’s wife, Jo Elaine Sapp. Hayward also 

testified in his own defense.

4 In the interview, J.B. reported that these incidents of anal rape occurred when 

she was seven or eight years old, meaning they occurred when the family initially lived in Maine, before moving to Florida, not after they moved back to 

Maine. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 7 of 23
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

Christina told the jury about J.B.’s relationship with Hayward. She stated they initially had a great relationship but reported 

that things changed after J.B.’s brother was born. Hayward favored 

his son, which made J.B. “very jealous” and “very angry.” Id. at 314, 

316. Christina testified that shortly before reporting the abuse, J.B. 

stated that she did not want to live with her siblings anymore and 

wanted to be an only child.

Christina told the jury that she had never seen signs of sexual 

abuse or anything that made her suspicious of Hayward. According 

to Christina, J.B. told her of the abuse after she stated that Hayward 

was coming to Maine for a visit. Upon hearing about seeing her 

father, J.B. began to cry, hid under the covers in a bed, and then 

told Christina that “her father ha[d] been raping her.” Id. at 352.

When J.B. first reported the abuse, Christina “believed her 

110 percent.” Id. at 319. In fact, Christina reported to law enforcement that Hayward confessed to her that he had sexual contact 

with J.B. In a written statement given to law enforcement, Christina reported that Hayward told her that he had “rubbed his penis 

on [J.B.’s] vagina.” Id. at 367. But at trial Christina testified that she 

had fabricated Hayward’s confession. She told the jury that she

made up the confession after a law enforcement officer directed her 

to get a confession from Hayward.

Christina testified that she later discovered that J.B. made up 

the accusations against Hayward. About six months after J.B. reported the abuse, Christina tried to have J.B. attend a counseling 

session related to the sexual assault. J.B. told Christina that she did 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 8 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 9

not need to attend the session because there had never been any 

sexual abuse. According to Christina, J.B. stated that she lied because she was angry that her brother was getting too much attention. 

On direct examination, Zies asked Christina whether Hayward owned guns. Although J.B. had testified that Hayward kept 

guns in the trailer, Christina testified that he had never owned any 

guns. 

The prosecutor extensively cross-examined Christina. She 

probed whether Hayward had ever abused other family members. 

Christina answered that Hayward had been emotionally abusive to 

her but denied that he was physically abusive. The prosecutor then 

reminded Christina that she had previously told a law enforcement 

officer that she had moved to the domestic violence shelter in 

Maine because she was tired of Hayward “smacking me [and] hitting me” and because he had “started hitting the kids.” Id. at 343. 

Christina then stated that she did not remember whether Hayward 

had hit her while they lived in Florida but admitted that it was “possible.”5 Id. at 345. Christina also admitted that after J.B. reported 

the abuse, she obtained a protective order that required Hayward 

to stay away from the children. 

5 In her testimony, Christina often had trouble remembering when events occurred. She told the jury that she had been in a car accident that left her with 

memory issues. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 9 of 23
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

Christina also was asked on cross-examination about her testimony that J.B. admitted to making up the story of the abuse. 

Christina acknowledged that after J.B. supposedly recanted her 

story, Christina lost custody of her. Christina conceded that even 

during the process of losing custody of her child, she never went to 

law enforcement or a caseworker to report that J.B. had admitted 

to making up the story of the abuse. 

Norman also testified about Hayward’s relationship with 

J.B. He stated that Hayward and J.B. had an excellent relationship 

for the first five years of her life. But, according to Norman, the 

relationship changed after J.B.’s brother was born, and J.B. “hated” 

her brother. Id. at 414. 

Norman also testified that J.B. admitted to him that she had 

made up the sexual abuse allegations against Hayward. He stated

that around the time J.B. admitted to the Florida caseworker that 

she had made up the abuse allegations, she made a similar confession to him. Norman stated that J.B. made this admission when 

they took a walk outside. He denied coercing or threatening J.B. 

into recanting the allegations. On cross examination, Norman admitted that he never went to law enforcement or the prosecutor to 

tell them that J.B. recanted. 

Sapp gave similar testimony. She testified that before J.B. 

made the allegations against her father, she was unhappy living 

with her family and wanted to move away from them. After J.B. 

reported the abuse, Christina and her children, including J.B., 

briefly lived with Sapp and Norman. Sapp testified that during this 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 10 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 11

time J.B. told Sapp that she had made up the allegations against her 

father. On cross-examination, Sapp conceded that the only people 

she told about J.B. recanting were Hayward, Norman, and Hayward’s attorney and admitted that she never told law enforcement 

about it.

Hayward testified in his own defense. He admitted that 

there was yelling and screaming in his home but denied sexually 

abusing J.B. He also denied that there was any domestic violence 

in the home. 

Hayward suggested that J.B. made up the abuse allegations 

because she was angry with him for moving the family from Maine 

to Florida and making her leave her friends. He testified that she 

had previously threatened him by saying, “I’ll get back at you 

someday.” Id. at 460. 

According to Hayward, J.B. admitted to the family that she 

made up the abuse allegations. He stated that after J.B. recanted, 

Christina allowed him to visit the family in Maine. According to 

Hayward, on this visit, J.B. told him that “she was sorry that she 

lied and . . . that her and mom had cleared it up with DHS and the 

police, and that, um, she did it out of anger.” Id. at 461. Hayward 

told the jury that he had told his first attorney, who represented 

him for over a year, that J.B. recanted and that he had expected the 

attorney to bring it to the State’s attention.

Hayward was asked about his gun ownership. He testified 

that while the family lived in Florida he did not possess any hunting 

rifles or keep any in his home. And he stated that he never owned 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 11 of 23
12 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

any handguns. He admitted that he owned a hunting rifle while the 

family lived in Maine but said that he stored the weapon at his 

cousin’s house to keep it away from his children. 

During closing arguments, Zies argued to the jury that the 

State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual abuse 

had occurred. Although J.B. had testified about the abuse, Zies told 

the jury that she was not a credible witness. He asserted that on 

direct examination J.B. had testified calmly, but that when she was 

asked questions on cross-examination, she became upset. Zies argued that this change in demeanor showed that J.B. was lying 

about the abuse. 

Zies also pointed to inconsistencies in J.B.’s testimony. He 

argued that it was not believable that J.B.’s brother remained asleep 

in a top bunk while Hayward raped her on multiple occasions, asking “who’s going to sleep through that?” and “how on God’s green 

earth is the child going to sleep through it 20 times with her loudly 

saying no, no, and him smacking her and the child never waking 

up?” Id. at 506–07. Zies also focused on J.B.’s testimony that she lied 

to the Florida social worker when she stated no abuse occurred. 

Zies argued, “[S]he admitted she’s a liar.” Id. at 507. He suggested 

that J.B. made up a story about sexual abuse to get a “new family” 

and “a new home.” Id. at 508.

After closing arguments and outside the presence of the jury, 

the trial judge asked Hayward whether he was pleased with Zies’s 

performance. Hayward said that he was. The court asked whether 

there was anything Hayward could “think of that . . . Zies did not

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 12 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 13

do that [Hayward] would have liked for him to have done,” and 

Hayward responded there was not. Id. at 552.

The jury convicted Hayward of one count of sexual battery 

on a person less than 12 years old and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation of a person less than 12 years old. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment. 

Hayward appealed, arguing that he was deprived of a fair 

trial because of comments the prosecutor made during closing argument. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in a summary decision. 

B.

Hayward later pursued post-conviction relief. In Florida 

state court, he filed a Rule 3.850 motion seeking to vacate and set 

aside his convictions. He argued, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance at trial when Zies failed to impeach J.B. 

with prior inconsistent statements. He asserted that Zies should 

have raised the following instances when J.B. allegedly gave inconsistent statements:

• in an interview with a medical examiner in Maine, J.B. 

reported that the sexual abuse Hayward inflicted included genital-to-genital penetration, anal penetration, 

and oral sex, but she did not testify at trial that he engaged in these acts; 

• in an interview with an examining physician in Maine, 

J.B. reported that Hayward “put his privates inside of her 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 13 of 23
14 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

privates,” Doc. 17-2 at 630 (internal quotation marks 

omitted), but she denied at trial that Hayward had engaged in genital-to-genital sexual penetrative contact;

• in an interview with Detective Caron in Maine, J.B. reported that Hayward twice forced her to have anal sex, 

but she did not reference these acts at trial; 

• in an interview with Detective Caron, J.B. reported that 

Hayward took off his underwear and was sometimes naked during the sexual abuse, but she testified at trial that 

she did not know whether he was ever naked during the 

sexual abuse;

• in an interview with Detective Caron, J.B. initially reported that Hayward said nothing after the assaults and 

later stated that he apologized after the last assault, but 

she testified at trial that Hayward sometimes apologized

to her after the assaults; 

• in an interview with Detective Caron, J.B. stated that her 

father had access to guns at his uncle’s house, but she testified at trial that Hayward kept guns at the family’s 

trailer; and

• J.B. told an aunt that when Hayward anally raped her,

Christina was either shopping or in the kitchen doing 

dishes, but J.B. testified at trial that when Hayward sexually abused her, her mother was asleep in a bedroom.

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 14 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 15

Hayward alleged that Zies’s failure to cross-examine J.B. about

these inconsistencies constituted deficient performance. 

Hayward also alleged in his post-conviction motion that he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel because Zies failed to object to the improper admission of collateral crimes evidence. Although the indictment alleged that Hayward engaged in only two 

discrete acts of abuse, at trial, J.B. testified in general about repeated 

abuse that she suffered. According to Hayward, Zies rendered deficient performance in failing to exclude J.B.’s testimony about 

these other uncharged acts.

After reviewing the parties’ written submissions and without holding an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied Hayward’s post-conviction motion. It rejected the claim that Zies was 

ineffective because he failed to cross examine J.B. about her inconsistent statements, concluding Hayward had not demonstrated 

prejudice. It explained that the jury was already aware of the “inconsistencies in the victim’s story, possible motives for fabrication, 

and that the victim had previously recanted.” Id. at 962. The state 

court also denied relief on the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to evidence about other instances of abuse,

again concluding that Hayward failed to show prejudice. 

Hayward appealed. In a short opinion, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. It summarily affirmed the denial of the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to cross examine J.B. about her allegedly inconsistent statements. But it reversed the denial of Hayward’s claim 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 15 of 23
16 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

“that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission 

of collateral crimes evidence.” Doc. 17-3 at 68. It remanded for the 

state court to hold an evidentiary hearing on that issue. 

On remand, the state court held the evidentiary hearing. 

Zies testified about his representation of Hayward. He explained 

that throughout the representation Hayward was adamant that he 

had not sexually abused J.B. The strategy at trial was for Zies to 

point out inconsistencies in J.B.’s testimony and “to explain what 

he perceived to be her motivations for fabricating.” Id. at 550. Zies 

stated that the defense strategy, to which Hayward agreed, was to 

let J.B. say as many things as possible at trial and then demonstrate 

that her accounts were inconsistent. Although he wanted to raise 

inconsistencies, Zies testified that he also was being careful not to 

open the door to allow J.B. to testify about abuse that allegedly occurred in Maine.

At the evidentiary hearing, Hayward also testified. He denied agreeing to a strategy in which Zies “would elicit testimony 

that the alleged victim . . . claimed [Hayward] touched her on multiple occasions.” Id. at 565.

After the hearing, the state court entered a written order 

denying Hayward relief on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in allowing the admission of evidence of other uncharged acts. 

It determined that Hayward had not established deficient performance or prejudice. It found that Zies had “testified credibly that 

[Hayward] wanted him to present all of the victim’s inconsistencies 

to the jury and that [he] was in agreement with the trial strategy to 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 16 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 17

allow the victim to amplify rather than limit the alleged incidents, 

in order to impeach the victim with multiple inconsistencies.” Doc. 

1-3 at 2. It explained that the chosen “theory of defense also included allowing the victim to testify to multiple allegations because 

the defense could argue that it was a physical impossibility that the 

crimes occurred, as the victim’s younger brother would have 

woken up at some point during repeated offenses.” Id. at 2–3. The 

court found not credible Hayward’s testimony that he did not 

agree to the trial strategy. Hayward appealed this denial, but a Florida appellate court affirmed in a summary decision.

C.

Hayward, proceeding through counsel, then filed a federal 

habeas petition in which he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to impeach J.B. with her inconsistent statements. 

The district court denied the petition. It explained that Hayward had raised this claim in his state court post-conviction motion, the state court had summarily denied relief because he had

not demonstrated prejudice, and a Florida appellate court had affirmed. The district court determined that the state court decision 

was entitled to deference. It explained that Zies had presented the 

defense theory that J.B. had fabricated the allegations of sexual 

abuse and was not a reliable witness. It pointed out that he had 

impeached J.B. by confronting her with inconsistent statements.

The court acknowledged that Zies failed to impeach J.B. 

with earlier statements in which she reported that additional sexual 

abuse occurred in which Hayward penetrated her vagina or anus. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 17 of 23
18 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

But it explained that J.B. did not testify that such abuse occurred on 

direct examination and “the lack of testimony regarding penetration was beneficial to” Hayward. Doc. 43 at 13. The court also observed that Zies failed to impeach J.B. with statements that conflicted with her trial testimony about “whether [Hayward] was 

wearing clothing when the abuse occurred,” whether [he] actually 

apologized, or [where her] mother was located during the incidents.” Id. at 12. But it explained that these issues “were not material to the case.” Id. at 12–13. It ultimately concluded that there was 

“no indication that additional impeachment would have changed 

the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 13.

Hayward, proceeding pro se, appealed. A member of this 

court granted him a certificate of appealability on the question of 

whether Zies “provided ineffective assistance . . . by failing to impeach the victim with her inconsistent statements?”6

II.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Morrow v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 

886 F.3d 1138, 1146 (11th Cir. 2018). 

6 In his appellate brief, Hayward challenges other aspects of Zies’s performance. For example, he complains that Zies should have deposed or called

J.B.’s brother as a witness at trial and should have objected when the prosecutor asked J.B. leading questions on direct examination. Because these issues

are outside the scope of the certificate of appealability, we do not address

them. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 18 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 19

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(AEDPA) governs our review of federal habeas petitions. See 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “AEDPA prescribes a highly deferential framework for evaluating issues previously decided in state court.” Sears 

v. Warden GDCP, 73 F.4th 1269, 1279 (11th Cir. 2023). It bars a federal court from granting habeas relief on a claim that was “adjudicated on the merits in [s]tate court” unless the state court’s decision 

was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, 

clearly established [f]ederal law, as determined by the Supreme 

Court of the United States” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the [s]tate 

court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

III.

The United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the 

Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The 

right to counsel includes the right to effective assistance of counsel. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that 

(1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) he was prejudiced 

by the deficient performance. Id. at 687. A court deciding an ineffective assistance claim need not “address both components of the 

inquiry if the [petitioner] makes an insufficient showing on one.” 

Id. at 697.

Here, we need not decide whether the state court decision 

summarily denying Hayward’s claim that counsel was ineffective 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 19 of 23
20 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

in failing to impeach J.B. with her inconsistent statements is entitled to deference because even if this claim was “eligible for de novo 

review, it would still fail.” Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 

(2009); see Reese v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 675 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th 

Cir. 2012) (explaining that, even when it is clear that AEDPA deference applies, we may affirm the denial of federal habeas relief 

based solely on de novo review). Hayward’s claim would fail under 

de novo review because he failed to establish that his counsel performed deficiently. 

To establish that counsel performed deficiently, a petitioner 

must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective 

standard of reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. This determination is based on “reasonableness under prevailing professional 

norms.” Id. Trial counsel’s performance is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness; to overcome that presumption a petitioner

must show that “no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did take.” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 

1305, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000). A court evaluates “the reasonableness 

of the challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed 

as of the time of the conduct.” Nixon v. Newsome, 888 F.2d 112, 115 

(11th Cir. 1989). “A tactical decision by counsel will almost never 

be overturned by habeas corpus.” Id.

The decision whether to cross-examine a witness is a tactical 

one, well within a defense attorney’s discretion. Fugate v. Head, 

261 F.3d 1206, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001). In Florida, a witness may be 

impeached with an earlier statement that is inconsistent with her 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 20 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 21

testimony at trial. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.608(1). An attorney performs

deficiently if he “sacrifice[s] an opportunity to weaken the star witness’s inculpatory testimony” by failing to impeach the witness 

with a prior inconsistent statement that was “much more favorable 

to [the defendant].” Nixon, 888 F.2d at 115. But a court may not find 

deficient performance simply “because other testimony might 

have been elicited from those who testified.” Fugate, 261 F.3d at 

1220 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Alderman v. Terry, 

468 F.3d 775, 792 (11th Cir. 2006) (“There is not one ‘correct’ way 

for counsel to provide effective assistance.”). We have recognized 

that “[c]laims that an attorney should have cross-examined further 

on inconsequential matters do not establish constitutionally deficient performance,” particularly when the attorney was able to 

challenge the witness’s credibility in other ways. Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001).

Here, we conclude that Hayward did not meet the first 

prong of Strickland’s test because he failed to show that counsel 

performed deficiently. Importantly, Zies succeeded at trial in impeaching J.B. and attacking her credibility. He brought up the interview when she told a Florida caseworker that Hayward had 

never abused her. He elicited testimony from Hayward, Christina, 

Norman, and Sapp that J.B. told each of them that she had not been 

sexually abused and had made up the allegations. And he cast doubt 

on J.B.’s testimony that Hayward kept guns in the trailer in Florida 

with testimony from Hayward and Christina that there were no 

guns in the trailer.

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 21 of 23
22 Opinion of the Court 22-11087

Hayward nevertheless argues that Zies performed deficiently because he failed to cross-examine J.B. about additional inconsistent statements. He says that Zies should have introduced

earlier statements in which J.B. reported that the sexual abuse included genital-to-genital penetration, anal penetration, and oral 

sex. On direct examination, J.B. did not testify that such abuse occurred, and the absence of this testimony benefited Hayward. 

Competent counsel could have concluded that there was a tactical 

advantage in keeping the jury from hearing this information. Put 

another way, although Zies failed to impeach J.B. with these earlier

inconsistent statements, he did not perform deficiently because the 

inconsistent statements were much more inflammatory and thus 

potentially damaging to Hayward. See Nixon, 888 F.2d at 115–16.

Hayward also says that Zies should have impeached J.B. 

with the following statements: (1) J.B. testified at trial that her 

mother was asleep when the abuse occurred but told her aunt that 

her mother was either shopping or in the kitchen when Hayward 

anally raped her; (2) J.B. testified at trial that she did not know 

whether Hayward was wearing clothes during the sexual abuse but 

told a law enforcement officer that on some occasions Hayward 

was naked when the abuse occurred; (3) J.B. testified at trial that on 

several occasions Hayward apologized after sexually abusing her 

but told a law enforcement officer that Hayward either never apologized or apologized only after the last incident when he sexually 

abused her; and (4) J.B. testified at trial that Hayward kept guns in 

a cabinet in the family’s Florida trailer but told a law enforcement 

officer that Hayward’s guns were at an uncle’s house. After 

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 22 of 23
22-11087 Opinion of the Court 23

reviewing the record and the various other ways that Zies attacked 

J.B.’s credibility, we cannot say that no competent counsel would 

have decided not to impeach J.B. with these statements, which 

were about immaterial matters. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1315. Accordingly, we conclude that Zies did not perform deficiently.

Because Hayward failed to demonstrate deficient performance, his ineffective assistance claim fails. We affirm the district 

court’s denial of Hayward’s § 2254 petition.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-11087 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 23 of 23