FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 29, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11883 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 1 4 2 0 6 - CV- DLG C H R I S N E W E L L D O W L I N G , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 29, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C hr i s N e w e l l D ow l i ng, a F l or i da pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s theIn reviewinga district cour t’s denial of a

habea s petition, we review de novo que stions 1 of law a nd mix ed questions of lawand fact and wereview finding s of fact for c lear error. Nyland v. Moore, 216 F .3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2000). We construe the district c ourt’s Certificate of Appe alability , which wa s grante d on the 2 merits o f D ow ling ’sc laim, to enc omp a ss t hethre sh old

proc e dural is su eof

wh e ther t hat c laim was proc edurally

defa ulted. See McCoy

v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1248 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 2 de ni a l of hi s ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. 1 O n ap p e a l, D o w lin g c la im s th a t th e s ta te tr ia l c o u r t e rr e d in c o n v ic tin g h im of a ggr a va t e d a s s a ul tw i th a de a dl y w e apon be c a us e the j ur y f ound tha the di d not p o s s e s s a f

ir e a r m d u r in g th e c o m m is s io n o f th e c r im e . T h e s ta te r e s p o n d s , in p a r t, thata f i re arm i s notre qu i re d for there t o b e adeadl y w eapo n. T he st at e a rgues that th e ju ry ’s f

in d in g a s to th e f

ir e a r m r e la te d to w h e th e rD o w lin g w o u ld b e s u b je c t to a m a n d a to ry m in im u m th r e e - y e a rs e n te n c e u n d e rF lo r id a S ta tu te § 7 7 5 .0 8 7 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) ( f

) , a n d n o t to w h e th e rD o w lin g w a s g u ilty o f a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt w i th a de a dl y w e apon. A c c or di ng t o the s t a t e , the vi c t i m ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tD ow l i ng thr e a t e ne d he rw i th a s hot gun s uppor t e d the f i ndi ng tha tD ow l i ng pos s e s s e d a de a dl y w e apon. W e a l s o not e tha tthe e vi de nc e a ttr i a l i nc l ude d t e s t i m ony f r om the vi c t i m tha tD ow l i ng ha d a kni f e ( a s w e l l a s a s hot gun) a nd thr e a t e ne d t o us e the kn i fe . I n a n y e v e n t , w e c o n c l u d e th a tD o w l i n g p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d th i s c l a i m. 2 D o w lin g f

a ile d to r a is e a n y f

e d e r a l o rc o n s titu tio n a l is s u e b e f o r e th e F lo r id a s ta teInd e e d, Do wl ingmadeno fe deral c on sti tution al argumentswi th re g ard to t hisc laim in 3 hispro s e§ 2 25 4 p e tition in t hedis tric t c ourt . H ow e ver, on a pp e al D ow lingargue s f

or thefirs t time that the trial court’ s judgment of conviction for ag gravated assault with a de adly wea pon violated his rights to due proce ss, equal prote ction and a jur y trial under theFifth, Six th and F ourt e e nth

Am e ndments . B e c a

us eDo wl ing ’sc laim i s c le arly proc e durally

de fa ult e d in thestate courts, weneed not address the e ffe ct of Dow ling’ s failureto couch his claim in federal c on sti tution al term s in

thedis tric t c ourt . 3 c our t s i n e i the rhi s di r e c torc ol l a t e r a l appe a l s , i nc l udi ng the tr i a l c our te rr orhe n o w r a is e s in h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . T h u s , D o w lin g ’s c la im o f tr ia l c o u r t e rr o ris 3 u n e x h a u s te d . B e c a u s e D o w lin g c a n n o t s e e k a d d itio n a l r e v ie w o f th is c la im in s ta te c o u r t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e te r m in e d th a t D o w lin g ’s c la im w a s p r o c e d u r a lly defaul t ed. S ee B ai l ey v. N agl e, 17 2 F . 3d 12 99 , 13 02 -03 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). F u r th e r m o r e , Do wl i n g h a s n o ts h o wn “ c a u s e ” f o rth e d e f

a u l ts u c h th a twe m a y a ddr e s s the c l a i m . S e e M urr a y v. C a rr i e r , 477 U . S . 478, 485, 106 S . C t . 2639, 2 6 4 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t a f e d e r a l c o u rt m a y s till a d d r e s s a p r o c e d u r a lly de f a ul t e d c l a i m i f

the pe t i t i one rs how s both “ c a us e ” a nd “ pr e j udi c e ” ) . D ow l i ng c o n te n d s th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l’s in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e w a s th e c a u s e f o rh is f a ilu r e to r a is e f

e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o n d ir e c t ap p e a l in s ta te c o u r t. H o w e v e r , D o w lin g d id n o t r a is e th is p a r tic u la rin e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

ap p e lla te co u n sel cl ai m i n h i s p et i t i o n fo r st at e h ab eas rel i ef. B ecau se D o w l i n g d i d n o trai se hi s i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of appel l at e c ou nsel cl ai m i n st at e c ou rtand i s pre cl ud ed f r om s e e ki ng a ddi t i ona l r e vi e w of tha tc l a i m i n s t a t e c our t , D ow l i ng’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

appe l l a t e c ouns e l c l a i m i s pr oc e dur a l l y de f a ul t e d a nd c a nnotbeDowlingdid not argue ca use and prejudice a s to his procedurally defa ulted ineffe ctive 4 assistanceof appe llate counse l claim before the district cour t. See Edwa

rds, 529 U.S. at 452-53, 120 S. Ct . at 1591-92 (e xplaining that a petitioner c annot show ca use for proce dural de fault of another claim if the inef

fec tive assistanceclaim was itself procedurally defa ulted unless the petitioner ca

n show ca use and prejudice c oncer

ning thedefa

ulted ineffe ctive assistanc e claim). 4 c ons i de r e d a s c a us e f

orthe de f

a ul tof hi s tr i a l c our te rr orc l a i m . S e e E dw a r ds v. C a rp e n te r , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 4 6 , 4 5 0 - 5 1 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 1 5 8 7 , 1 5 9 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t a f e de r a l ha be a s c our ti s ba rr e d f r om c ons i de r i ng a pr oc e dur a l l y de f a ul t e d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im a s c a u s e f o rp r o c e d u r a l d e f

a u lt o f a n o th e rc la im ) ; H ill v. Jones, 81 F . 3d 10 15 , 10 29 -31 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). F urther, because D ow l i ng has 4 f a i l e d t o s h o w c a u s e f

o rth e p r o c e d u r a l d e f

a u l to f h i s tr i a l c o u r te rr o rc l a i m , we n e e d n o ta d d r e s s w h e th e rh e s h o w e d p r e j u d i c e . Se e M c Cl e s k e y v . Za n t , 4 9 9 U . S. 46 7, 50 2, 11 1 S . C t . 14 54 , 14 74 (199 1). F i nal l y, D ow l i ng has notshow n a fund am ent al m i sc arri age of j ust i ce that w ou l d p erm i tus t o con si der the m er i t s of hi s proce du ra l l y def aul t ed cl ai m . S ee S c hl up v. D e l o, 513 U . S . 298, 314- 15, 115 S . C t . 851, 860- 61 ( 1995) . D ow l i ng c la im s th a t h e is a c tu a lly in n o c e n t o f th e o f f e n s e w ith w h ic h h e h a s b e e n c o n v ic te d . H ow e ve r , D ow l i ng of

f e r e d no ne w e vi de nc e of a c tua l i nnoc e nc e . S e e J ohns on v. A l abam a, 25 6 F . 3d 11 56 , 11 71 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe ac tual i nn ocence e xcept i on i s “ exce edi ng l y narrow i n scope” and requi re s proof of actual i nn ocence, no tl egal i nn ocence) .5

A s D ow l i ng ha s notove r c om e the pr oc e dur a l de f a ul tof hi s c l a i m , w e do not r e a c h the m e r i t s of

hi s c l a i m . F orthe s e r e a s ons , the de ni a l of D ow l i ng’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on i s a f

f i r m e d. AF F I RME D.