[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 41 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 18 71 -PCH LEONARD WAYNE TAYLOR, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 11 , 20 13 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 1 of 10Leo na rdW ayne Tay lo r, a Fl or id a p ris on er p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he

de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us ba se d o n t he fin di ng th atm an y

of h is cla im s wer e p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed . W e g ran te d Taylor ’s m ot io n fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity (“ COA”) as to th e fo ll owi ng two is su es : (1 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Cl ai m s 5 an d 2 1 wer e pr oc edur al ly defau lt edwas c orrect , inli gh t o f th e fac t tha t the st at e co urt re vi ewedth es e cl ai m s o n d ire ctap pe al ? (2 ) Whe th er the st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt’s p ro cedur al rul in g a s to Cla im s 1 , 2, 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , and18 of Taylo r’s 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n re st edon in de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e st at e g ro un ds , and , acco rd in gl y , whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt’s fin di ng th atth es e cl ai m s wer e p ro cedur al ly defau lt edon fed eral rev ie w was co rrec t? On ap pe al , Tay lo r fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y de te rm in ed th atCla im s 5 an d 2 1 wer e p ro cedur al ly defau lt edbe cau se he rai se d t ho se cla im s i n hi s b rie f on di rectap pe al in st at e co urt. Tay lo r ne xtarg ue s t ha t Cl ai m s 1 , 2, 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , and18 were n otpro cedur al ly barre d b ecau se he rai se d t ho se cla im s in hi s s ta te pe ti ti on for

writof h ab eas co rp us , inwhi ch he rai se d acla im of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Fi na ll y , Tay lo r arg ue s t he m eri ts of h is cla im s.

“ Whe n e xa m in in g adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 54 pe ti ti on , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d i ts leg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo .” Owen v. Se c’y f

or Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 56 8 F .3d89 4, 9 07 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). 2 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 2 of 10Whe th er a cl ai m is subjec t t o t he do ctrin e o f pr oc edur al de fau ltis a m ix ed qu es ti on of f

actan d l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Gre en e v. Upt on , 64 4 F .3d11 45 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 76 7 (2 01 2) . A st at e p ris on er m

us t h av e “ ex haus te d t he rem ed ie s av ai labl e in th e co urts of th e St at e” u nl es s “ th ere i s an ab se nc e o f av ai labl e St at e co rrec ti ve pro ces s” or

“ ci rcu m st an ces ex is t tha t re nd er s uc h p ro ces s i ne ffec ti ve to pro te ct[hi s] rig ht s.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( b) (1 ). “ It i s wel l es tabl is he d tha t fe de ral co urts wil l n otrev ie w qu es ti on s o f fed eral law p res en te d i n ahabe as pe ti ti onwhen th e st at e co urt’s de ci si on res ts up on a st at e-l aw gr ou ndth atis in de pe nd en t o f th e fed eral qu es ti on an d a de qu at e to supp ort the jud gm en t.” Co ne v. Bell , 55 6 U.S. 4 49 , 46 5, 1 29 S. Ct . 17 69 , 17 80 , 17 3 L. Ed. 2 d 7 01 (20 09 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt ha s h el d t ha t “ whe n ape ti ti on er fa il s t o ra is e h is fed eral cla im s i n c om pl ia nc e wit h rel ev an t s ta te pro cedur al rul es , th e st at e co urt’s re fu sa l t o a dju di cat e th e cl ai m or di na ril y qu al ifi es as a n i nd ep en de ntan d a de qu at e st at e g ro un d fo r de nyin g fed eral rev ie w.” Id. “ The ad equa cy of t he pro cedur al ba r is no t a m at te r of st at e la w, bu t i s i ts el f a fed eral qu es ti on .” Doo rb al v. Dep’ t o

f Co rr . , 57 2 F .3d12 22 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . W e ap pl y th e fo ll owi ng th ree- pa rt t es t t o d et erm in e whe th er a s ta te co urt de ci si on res te d upo n a n “ in de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e” g ro un d u nd er s ta te law: 3 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 3 of 10Fi rs t, the las t s ta te co urt re nd eri ng a jud gm en t i n t he cas e m us t cl earl y an d e xp res sl y

st at e th atitis rel y in g o n s ta te pro cedur al rul es to res ol ve th e fed eral cla im

witho utreac hi ng th e m eri ts of t ha t cl ai m . Seco nd ly, th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on m us t re stso li dl y

on st at e law gr ou nd s, an d m ay

no t b e “ in te rtwi ne d wi th anin te rp ret at io n o f fed eral la w.” Fin al ly, th e st at e p ro cedur al rul e m us t b e ad equa te ; i .e., itm us t no t b e ap pl ie d i n a n a rb itrary or u np rece de nt edfas hi on or b e m an ife st ly unf

ai r. Id. (ci ta ti on s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . W e m ay affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng onan y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e reco rd . See Peop les v. C amp be ll , 37 7 F .3d12 08 , 12 35 -3 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) (d et erm in in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin de te rm in in g t ha t an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m was p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed , bu t o pt in g t o d eci de th e cl ai m in st eadof r em an di ng itto th e d is tri ctco urt fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng ). I. Cla ims 5 an d 2 1 Ourrev ie w of the de ni al of a§ 2 25 4 p et it io n i s g ov ern edby the Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”). W in do m v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 57 8 F .3d12 27 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Und er the AEDPA’ s

“ hi gh ly defer en ti al st an da rdforrev ie win g s ta te co urt ju dg m en ts ,” we m ay no t gr an t h ab eas rel ie f on cla im s p rev io us ly adjud ic at edon th e m eri ts by a sta te co urt un le ss th e st at e co urt ad

jud ic at io n re su lt edin a de ci si on th atwas “ (1 ) co nt rary to, orin vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as

4 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 4 of 10de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2) was b as edon an

un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he St at e co urt p ro ceed in g.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) ; se e a ls o 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) .

“ The ph ras e ‘clear ly establ is he d F ed eral law’ refer s t o the go ve rn in g l eg al pr in ci pl e o r pr in ci pl es setforth by the Supr em e Co urt atth e ti m e th e st at e co urt ren de rs it s d eci si on .” W

alker v. Hadi , 61 1 F .3d72 0, 7 23 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Cl ai m s 5 an d 2 1 wer e p ro cedur al ly de fau lt ed . This fin di ng was e rro r be cau se th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt ad dr es se d Cl ai m s 5 an d 2 1 o n t he m eri ts of t he di rectap pe al . Se e Parker v. Se c’y f or Dept . of Co rr . , 33 1 F .3d76 4, 7 71 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Thi s C ou rt h as furth er cl ari fie d t ha t a fed eral cla im

is no t b arre d o n fe de ral habe as rev ie w if the st at e co urts actua ll y rejecta cl ai m

on th e m eri ts .”). Howev er, we m ay affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng fo r an y gro un ds supp orte d b y

th e rec or d, se e Peo

pl es , 37 7 F .3dat 1 23 5- 36 , andwe pr oc eedbe lo w to ev al ua te th e m eri ts of t he se cla im s. Be cau se we co nc lu de th at Cl ai m s 5 an d 2 1 fa il on th e m eri ts , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Tay lo r’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n wi th res pe ctto th es e two cla im s. A. Cla im 5

5 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 5 of 10InTay lo r’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n, h e arg ue d t ha t the tri al co urt erredin reject in g

hi s p ro po se d ju ry

in st ru ct io n o n l os t o r ab an do ne d p ro pe rty. H e arg ue s t ha t, be cau se hi s d efen se was t ha t h e fo un d t he st ol enpro pe rty onth e si de of t he roa d aft er i t h adalr eady

be enst ol en , th e jury sho ul d h av e b een in st ru ct edon th e Fl or id a St atut e’s de fin it io n o f “ lo stpro pe rty” and“ ab an do ne d p ro pe rty.” The in qu iry by

a habe as co urt i n adu e p ro ces s ch al le ng e to jury in st ru ct io ns

“ is no t wh ethe r th e ch al le ng edin st ru ct io ns were u nd es irabl e, erro ne ou s, o r ev en un iv ers al ly con de m

ne d,” bu t ra th er, “ whe th er the in st ru ct io ns so in fect edth e en ti re tria l tha t the res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on vi ol at es du e p ro ces s.” Ja mer so n v . Sec ’y fo r Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 41 0 F .3d68 2, 6 90 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) .

“ Whe re a re qu es te d ju ry

in stru ct io n i s al read y

co ve redby the ch arg es gi ve n, fai lu re t o g iv e th e reque st edch arg e is no t erro r atall , m uc h l es s co ns ti tu ti on al erro r.” Rod

ri gu ez v. W ai nw ri gh t , 74 0 F .2d88 4, 8 85 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t err in no t p erm it ti ng Tay lo r’s pr op os edjury in st ru ct io n. With res pe ctto Tay lo r’s th eftch arg e, th e jury was sp eci fic al ly in st ru ct edth atitm

us t fi ndbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t Taylor“ kn owi ng ly, un la wfu ll y ” o bt ai ne d t he pro pe rty andth athe di d s o wi th th e “ in te ntto eit he r te m po rari ly or pe rm an en tl y

de pr iv e” the own er o f he r ri gh t t o t he pro pe rty or t o ap pr op ria te itforhi s o r an ot he r’s us e. Acco rd in gl y , if the jury be li ev edTay lo r’s 6 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 6 of 10te st im on y

at t ria l tha t h e fo un d t hi s p ro pe rty onth e g ro un d a fte r itha d b een st ol en an d t ha t h e b el ie ve d t ha t h e was ab le to ke ep th e p ro pe rty for h im se lf, t he jury was ab le to fin d t ha t h e was no t g ui lt y of t he ft b ecau se he di d n ot“ kn owi ng ly, un la wfu ll y ” o bt ai n t he pro pe rty with th e in te ntto de pr iv e. Se e id. The s ta te co urt’s ru li ng on Cla im

5 was no t a d eci si on th atwas c on tra ry to , or i nv ol ve d a n un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Se e W in do m , 57 8 F.3 d a t 1 47 . B. Cla im 21 Tay lo r al so arg ue d i n h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n t ha t the tri al co urt erredin ov erru li ng hi s o bjec ti on to th e p ro se cu to r’s us e o f a p erem pt ory ch al le ng e to st rik e anAfric anAm eri can juro r. In Bat so n v . Ken tu cky , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a p ro se cu to r’s us e o f pe rem pt ory st rik es to pre cl ud e p ers on s fr om servi ng on juri es on acco un t o f th ei r race vi ol at es th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t. 4 76 U.S. 79 , 89 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 71 2, 1 71 9, 9 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 9 (1 98 6) . The Co urt h as est ab li sh eda th ree- st ep an al y si s i n e va lu at in g a Bat so n cl ai m . Id. at96 -9 8, 1 06 S. Ct. at 17 22 -2 4. Fi rs t, the de fen da ntm

us t m ak e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e b y sh owi ng th at th e to ta li ty of th e rel ev an t fa ct s g iv es ris e to anin fere nc e o f di sc riminat ory

purp os e. Seco nd , on ce the de fen da ntha s m ad e o uta

7 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 7 of 10pr im a fac ie cas e, th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e St at e to ex pl ai n a de qu at el y

th e rac ia l ex cl us io n b y

off eri ng pe rm is si bl e rac e-n eu tra l ju st ifi cat io ns fo r th e st rik es . Thir d, i f a rac e-n eu tra l ex pl an at io n i s t en de red , th e tri al co urt m

us t the n d eci de . . . whe th er the op po ne ntof t he st rik e h as pr ov edpu rp os efu l ra ci al di sc riminat io n. Jo hn so n v . Cal if

or ni a , 54 5 U.S. 1 62 , 16 8, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 41 0, 2 41 6, 1 62 L. Ed. 2d 12 9 (2 00 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, ci ta ti on s, an d fo ot no te s o m it te d) . At the sec on d s te p, the co urt ev al ua te s o nl y th e “ faci al va li di ty of th e pr os ecu to r’s ex pl an at io n,” an d u nl es s a d is cri m in at ory in te ntis “ in he ren t i n t he pr os ecu to r’s ex pl an at io n, the reas onoff eredwil l b e d eem edrace ne ut ral .” Purket t v. Elem , 51 4 U.S. 7 65 , 76 8, 1 15 S. Ct. 1 76 9, 1 77 1, 1 31 L. Ed. 2d83 4 (1 99 5) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The thi rdst ep “ in vo lv es ev al ua ti ng ‘ th e p ers ua si ve ne ss of t he jus ti fic at io n’ pro ffer edby the pro se cu to r, bu t ‘th e u lt im at e b ur de n o f pe rs ua si on reg ard in g ra ci al m ot iv at io n re st s wi th , andne ve r sh ift s fr om , th e o pp on en t o f th e st rik e.’” Rice v. Co ll in s , 54 6 U.S. 3 33 , 33 8, 1 26 S. Ct. 9 69 , 97 4, 1 63 L. Ed. 2d 82 4 (2 00 6) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ [A] feder al habe as co urt ca n o nl y gra nt[a h ab eas ] pe ti ti on if i t was un reas on ab le to cred itth e p ro se cu to r’s race -n eu tra l ex pl an at io ns fo r th e Bat

so n ch al le ng e.” Id. Here, dur in g vo ir

di re , th e St at e u se d ape rem pt ory ch al le ng e to st rik e an Afri canAm eri can juro r be cau se th e juro r’s br ot he r was a po li ce o ffi cer. Des pi te Tay lo r’s ob

jecti onth atitwas n ota fai r co nc ernfor th e St at e th ata juro r kn ew 8 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 8 of 10so m eo ne in law en fo rcem en t, the tri al co urt s tru ckth e juro r. The t ria l co urt’s

de te rm in at io n t ha t the Sta te ’s pro ffer edreas on was g enui ne ly race n eu tra l was no t un reas on ab le as a n i nd iv idua l’s u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em co ul d be a reas on th ata pr os ecu to r wou ldno t wan t tha t i nd iv idua l o n the jury. Se e id. at 34 1- 42 , 12 6 S . Ct. at97 6 (“ Rea so nabl e m in ds rev ie win g t he reco rdm ig htdi sa gr ee ab ou t the pro se cu to r’s cred ib il it y , bu t o n h ab eas rev ie w th atdo es no t s uf fic e to supe rced e th e tr ia l co urt’s cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n.” ). The s ta te co urt’s ru li ng on Cl ai m 21 was n ota de ci si onth atwas c on trary to , or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law. Se e W in do m , 57 8 F .3dat 1 47 . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Tay lo r’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n as to Cla im s 5 an d 2 1. II . Cla ims 1 , 2, 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , and 18 As an in it ia l m at te r, we ha ve “ al read y co nc lu de d t ha t the pro cedur al requi rem en ts of F lo rid a’s Ru le 3.8 50 co ns ti tu te in de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e st at e gr ou nd s u nd er the ap pl ic ab le law.” LeCr oyv. Se c’y, Fla. Dep ’t o f Co rr . , 42 1 F .3d 12 37 , 12 60 n.2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ci ti ng W hi ddon v. Dug

ge r , 89 4 F .2d12 66 , 12 67 -6 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) ). In LeCr oy , we hel d t ha t b ecau se th e p et it io ne r di d n ot rai se hi s cl ai m

on di rectap pe al in th e st at e co urt, “ th e St at e 3 .85 0 C ou rt’s re fu sa l to co ns id er” t he pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m “ as pro cedur al ly barre d re st edon an 9 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 9 of 10in de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e st at e g ro un d t ha t p recl ud es fed eral habe as co ns id erat io n

of th is is su e.” Id. at 1 26 0. Bec au se Tay lo r di d n otrai se Cla im s 1 , 2, 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , and18 on di rectap pe al to th e st at e co urt, the di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t tho se cla im s were p ro cedur al ly defau lt edres te d o n a n i nd ep en de ntan d a de qu at e st at e g ro un d. Tay lo r fu rth er ar gu es th atth es e cl ai m s wer e n otpro cedur al ly defau lt edbe cau se , in hi s s ta te habe as pe ti ti on , he a rg ue d t ha t h is co un se l h adbe enin effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in cl ud e th es e cl ai m s i n Taylor ’s bri ef o n d ire ctap pe al . Howev er, thi s ar gu m en t is witho utm eri t b ecau se , forpurp os es of e xh au st io n o f st at e rem ed ie s, a subs ta nt iv e cl ai m

is “ se pa rat e an d d is ti nc t” fro m anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m

ba se d o n t he subs ta nt iv e cl ai m . Se e id. at 1 26 0 n .24 ; se e a ls o Pietri v. Fla . Dep’ t o

f Co rr . , 64 1 F .3d12 76 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct . 15 51 (20 12 ). Bas edon our rev ie w of the reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . 1 AFFIRMED.

Taylor’s Motion for L eave to File Reply Brief Out of T ime is GRANTED. 1 10 Case: 11-13411 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 10 of 10