FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 16257 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo s . 9 9 - 0 0 7 5 5 - C R - J AL 0 2 - 2 2 9 2 3 - C V- J AL R I C H A R D M E N E N D E Z , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , 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 l24, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:On appe al, Menendez also argues threeissues relate d to the leg ality of his arrest and the 1 se arch o f his v ehic leand

ho me . Wewi ll n ot c on sider t he seargumentsbe c a

us eour re view i s limit ed to the issues spec ified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998). 2 R ic h a r d M e n e n d e z ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is p r o s e m o tio n to v a c a te , u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . M e n e n d e z f ile d h is m o tio n a f

te rth e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f th e An t i t e rr o r i s m a n d Ef f e c t i v e De a th Pe n a l ty Ac to f 1 9 9 6 ( “ AEDPA” ) , Pu b . L. N o . 1 0 4 - 1 3 2 , 1 1 0 St a t1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . Th e r e f o r e , th e p r o v i s i o n s o f

th e A ED PA gove rn thi s appe a l . W e gr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty ( “ C O A ” ) on the f o llo w in g is s u e s : ( 1) W he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s not i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o c a l l M e ne nde z ’ s f a the ra s aw i tne s s i n the su p p ressi o n h eari n g d u e t o a co n fl i cto f i n t erest s. (2) W hether, i n l i gh tof C l i sby v. Jones, 96 0 F . 2d 92 5, 93 6 (11 th C i r. 1992) ( e n ba nc ) , the di s tr i c tc our tw a s r e qui r e d t o a ddr e s s the c l a i m of tr ia l e rr o rr a is e d in M e n e n d e z ’s r e p ly to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s r e s p o n s e to hi s m ot i on t o v ac at e. ( 3 ) I f s o , w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to a d d r e s s M e n e n d e z ’s c la im tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o a dvi s e hi m r e ga r di ng the p o te n tia l c o n f

lic t o f in te r e s ts a r is in g f

r o m jo in t r e p r e s e n ta tio n . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 In C l i sby, w e i nstruct ed di stri ctcourt s t o res ol ve al l cl ai m s f or re l i ef ra i se d i n ape t i t i on f

orhabe a s c orpus r e l i e f

pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254, r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rhabe a s r e l i e f

i s gr a nt e d orde ni e d. C l i s by , 960 F . 2d a t936. W he n a3

d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ils to a d d r e s s a ll o f

th e c la im s in ah ab e a s p e titio n , w e “w ill v a c a te the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntw i thoutpr e j udi c e a nd r e m a nd the c a s e f or consi dera t i on of al l re m ai ni ng cl ai m s . . . . ” I d. at93 8. T hu s, w e c on si der w hether thi s c as e m ustbe re m anded u nd erC l i sby bef ore r ea chi ng the i ss ue of tri al c ouns e l ’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve ne s s . S e e C a l l a ha n v. C a m pbe l l , 396 F . 3d 1287, 1288- 89 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( r e ma n d i n g u n d e rCl i s b y w i th o u tc o n s i d e r i n g th e tw o c l a i ms w h ic h w e r e a d d r e s s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t) . A l th o u g h w e l i b eral l y co n stru e p ro se p l ead i n g s, T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th C i r . 1998) , a r gum e nt s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l i n ar e pl y br i e f

a r e notpr ope r l y be f

or e us . S e e , e . g. , L ove ttv. R a y , 327 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( ap p ly in g th is ru le to ap r o s e ap p e lla n t) . I n h is i ni t i a l br i e f

, M e ne nde z onl y a r gue s the m e r i t s of hi s c l a i m , a nd doe s note ve n m a ke ar e f e r e nc e t o C l i s by . T hus , M e ne nde z ha s aba ndone d the C l i s by i s s ue by f a i l i ng t o rai se i ti n h i s i ni t i al bri ef . W e now consi der the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatM enendez’ s tri al coun se l w a s noti ne f

f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o c a l l M e ne nde z ’ s f a the ra s aw i tne s s i n the supp re ss i on hear i ng du e t o a confl i ctof i nt er es t s. W e r evi ew de no vo an i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m . C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 1305, 13 12 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc). W e a l so re vi ew de no vo the qu es t i on of w hether4

a n a tt orne y l abor e d unde rac onf l i c tof i nt e r e s t . B r ow nl e e v. H a l e y , 306 F . 3d 1043, 10 58 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). T he di stri ctcourt ’ s s ub si di ary f i nd i ng s of f

ac tar e r evi ew ed f orc l e a re rr or . S e e S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 698, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2 0 7 0 , 8 0 L .E d .2 d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . W h er e a n in ef

fe ctiv e a ss istan ce claim is b as ed o n a c o n flict o f in tere st, “ a de f e nda ntm us ts how f

i r s t , tha thi s a tt orne y ha d a n a c tua l c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s t , a nd s e c ond, tha tthe c onf

l i c ta dve r s e l y a f

f e c t e d c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e . ” P e gg v. U n i t ed S t at es, 2 5 3 F . 3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (em p h asi s o m i tt ed ); see al so M i c ke ns v. T a y l or , 535 U . S . 162, 172 n. 5, 122 S . C t . 1237, 1244 n. 5, 152 L . E d. 2d 291 ( 2002) ( “ A n ‘ a c tua l c onf l i c t , ’ f orS i xth A m e ndm e ntpurpos e s , i s ac onf l i c tof i nt e r e s ttha ta dve r s e l y a f f e c t s c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e . ” ) . “ A n ‘ a c tua l c onf l i c t ’ of i nt e r e s toc c ur s w he n al a w y e rha s ‘ i nc ons i s t e nti nt e r e s t s . ’ ” F r e und v. B utt e rw or th, 16 5 F . 3d 83 9, 85 9 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T he confl i ct c a nnotbe m e r e l y pos s i bl e , s pe c ul a t i ve , orhypothe t i c a l . R e y nol ds v. C hapm a n, 2 5 3 F .3 d 1 3 3 7 , 1 3 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T o d is tin g u is h b e tw e e n a c tu a l a n d p o s s ib le c o n f lic ts o f in te r e s t, [w ] e w i l l no tfi nd an ac tual confl i ctof i nt er es tun l es s app el l ant s c an poi ntt o s pe c i f

i c i ns t a nc e s i n the r e c or d t o s ugge s ta n a c tua l c onf l i c tor i m pai rm entof thei r i nt er es t s. . . . A pp el l ant s m ustm ake afa ctual s how i ng of

i nc ons i s t e nti nt e r e s t s a nd m us tde m ons tr a t e tha tthe a tt orne y m a de ac hoi c e be tw e e n pos s i bl e a l t e rna t i ve c a us e s of a c t i on, s uc h a s e l i c i t i ng ( orf

a i l i ng t o e l i c i t ) e vi de nc e he l pf ul t o one c l i e ntbut5

harm ful t o the other. If

he di d n otm ake s uch a choi ce , the confl i ct r e m a in ( s ) h y p o th e tic a l. I d . a t 1 3 4 3 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( o m is s io n in o r ig in a l) . “T o p r o v e a d v e r s e e f f e c t, a de f e nda ntne e ds t o de m ons tr a t e : ( a ) tha tthe de f e ns e a tt orne y c oul d ha ve pur s ue d a pl a us i bl e a l t e rna t i ve s tr a t e gy , ( b) tha tthi s a l t e rna t i ve s tr a t e gy w a s r e a s onabl e , a nd ( c ) tha tthe a l t e rna t i ve s tr a t e gy w a s notf ol l ow e d be c a us e i tc onf l i c t e d w i th the a tto rn e y ’s e x te rn a l lo y a ltie s .” I d . A c r im in a l c o m p la in t w a s f ile d a g a in s t M e n e n d e z a n d h is f a th e r , J u lio M e n e n d e z , a lle g in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts c o n s p ir e d to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e a nd po ss es se d w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne and p osse ss ed a f i re arm du ri ng and i n rel at i on t o the com m i ss i on of a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e. M enendez a n d h is f a th e rr e ta in e d c o u n s e l, M a n u e l G o n z a le z , J r ., to r e p r e s e n t th e m in c onne c t i on w i th the s e c ha r ge s . A n i ndi c tm e ntw a s f i l e d, na m i ng M e ne nde z a s the s o le d e f e n d a n t, a n d c h a r g in g h im w ith c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne . M e ne nde z f i l e d m ot i ons t o su p p ress th e ev i d en ce sei zed fro m a v eh i cl e an d h i s resi d en ce an d t o su p p ress h is s ta te m e n ts to la w e n f o r c e m e n t. A tthe supp re ss i on hear i ng , M enendez t es t i fi ed, bu thi s f ather, w ho w as pr e s e nta tM e ne nde z ’ s r e s i de nc e dur i ng l a w e nf or c e m e nt ’ s e ntrya nd s e a r c h of the prem i se s, di d n ott es t i fy . M enendez and the go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es prov i ded6

confl i ct i ng ac coun t s of w hatoccurre d d uri ng the st op of the vehi cl e M enendez w as d r iv in g a n d a t M e n e n d e z ’s r e s id e n c e . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e , f in d in g th a t c r e d ib ility w as the on l y i ss ue and thatthe go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es w er e c re di bl e a nd that M e n e n d e z w a s n o t, r e c o m m e n d e d th e d e n ia l o f M e n e n d e z ’s m o tio n s to s u p p r e s s . O v e rM e n e n d e z ’s o b

je c tio n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d o p te d th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o r t. M e ne nde z s ubs e que nt l y e nt e r e d ac ondi t i ona l pl e aof gui l ty t o both c ount s of the in d ic tm e n t. O n ap p eal , M en en d ez arg u es th atth ere w as an actu al co n fl i cto f i n t erest b e c a u s e h is f

a th e r ’s te s tim o n y w o u ld h a v e b e e n b e n e f ic ia l to h is c a s e , b u t h is c o u n s e l f a ile d to c a ll h is f

a th e rto th e w itn e s s s ta n d in a n a tte m p t to p r o te c t h is f a th e rf r o m r e - in d ic tm e n t o rp o s s ib le im p e a c h m e n t. A s to a n a d v e r s e e f f e c t, M e ne nde z a r gue s tha tc ouns e l c oul d ha ve c a l l e d hi s f a the ra s aw i tne s s a tthe supp re ss i on hear i ng , thatthi s s tra t egy w as re as on abl e, and thatthi s s tra t egy w as no tpu rs ued b ec ause coun se l w as prot ec t i ng hi s f ather. B o th M e n e n d e z a n d h is f a th e rh a v e c o n s is te n tly m a in ta in e d th a t J u lio M enendez w as no ti nv ol ved i n h i s s on ’ s i l l egal ac t i vi t i es . T he re turn o f a n i ndi c tm e nta ga i ns tM e ne nde z butnota ga i ns thi s f a the r , how e ve r , c r e a t e d a s itu a tio n in w h ic h ap o s s ib le c o n f lic t c o u ld a r is e if

th e a tto rn e y w a s f

o r c e d to c h o o s e b e tw e e n as tr a te g y th a t w o u ld h e lp M e n e n d e z b u t w o u ld p la c e J u lio7

M e ne nde z i n da nge rof

be i ng i ndi c t e d. C f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J one s , 52 F . 3d 924, 92 6 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ho l di ng thatan ac tual confl i ctof i nt er es texi st ed w here r a i s i ng as e l e c t i ve pr os e c ut i on de f e ns e on be ha l f

of one c l i e nt“ w oul d ha ve ha d the ef fe ctof pres suri ng the go vernm entt o i nd i ct[the att orney’ s] other c l i ent . ”) (f oo tno t e om i tt ed). H ow ever , thi s pot ent i al confl i ctdi d n otdevel op i nt o an actual c o n f lic t w h e n c o u n s e l w a s f a c e d w ith th e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e rto u s e J u lio M enendez as a w i tness atthe supp re ss i on hear i ng . F i rs t , Jul i o M enendez st at ed tha the w a nt e d t o t e s t i f

y a tthe he a r i ng. S e c ond, ba s e d on the f a c t s of thi s c a s e , the p o s s ib ility th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld p r o s e c u te J u lio M e n e n d e z a s ar e s u lt o f h is t es t i m on y a tthe supp re ss i on hear i ng w as t oo spec ul at i ve t o cre at e a n actual c o n f lic t. A tthe evi dent i ary hea ri ng on M enendez’ s § 22 55 m ot i on , coun se l adm i tt ed thati tre m ai ned a concern thatJul i o M enendez coul d st i l l be i n troub l e. I n h is opi ni on, the gove rnm e ntthoughttha tJ ul i o M e ne nde z w a s i nvol ve d, butdi d not h a v e a n y e v id e n c e to c h a r g e h im . H e te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s c o n c e rn e d th a t J u lio M enendez w ou l d b e prose cut ed base d o n a w i tness com i ng forw ar d w i th add i t i on al evi dence. H ow ever , there i s no causa l re l at i on shi p b etw ee n u si ng Jul i o M enendez as a w i tness i n the supp re ss i on hear i ng and the go vernm entre ce i vi ng addi t i on al e v id e n c e a g a in s t J u lio M e n e n d e z b a s e d o n in f o rm a tio n f

r o m aw itn e s s .Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.C t. 1602, 16 L .Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 8 In prepara t i on for the supp re ss i on hear i ng , G on za l ez m etw i th M enendez an d h i s fath er an d d i scu ssed th e factth ath e w as g o i n g t o cal l Ju l i o M en en d ez as a w i tne s s . T he t e s t i m ony tha tJ ul i o M e ne nde z w a s pr e pa r e d t o gi ve w oul d: ( 1) de ny kn ow l edge of or i nv ol vem enti n h i s s on ’ s i l l egal ac t i vi t i es ; (2) deny thathe w as e ve ri n the ga r a ge ; ( 3) s ugge s ttha tthe s e a r c h of the r e s i de nc e oc c urr e d be f or e the ve hi c l e s t op; a nd ( 4) c orr obor a t e hi s s on’ s t e s t i m ony tha tthe s e a r c h of the r e s id e n c e o c c u rr e d w ith o u t c o n s e n t a n d th a t n o M ir a n d a w a rn in g s w e r e g iv e n to 2 M en en d ez in sid e th e h o u se . T h er e is n o th in g in h er en t i n Ju li o M en en d ez ’s t es t i m on y thatcoul d res ul ti n h i s prose cut i on , as he deni ed kn ow l edge of or in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e d ru g s a n d h is te s tim o n y w a s c o n s is te n t w ith th is d e n ia l. B a s e d on J ul i o M e ne nde z ’ s a nt i c i pa t e d t e s t i m ony , the pos s i bi l i ty tha tthe prosec ut or coul d b ri ng ou tsom e i nform at i on on cr oss- exam i nat i on thatcoul d l ea d t o Jul i o M enendez’ s s ub se qu entprosec ut i on i s t oo spec ul at i ve t o g i ve ri se t o an a c tu a l c o n f

lic t o f in te r e s t. E v en i f th ere w as an actu al co n fl i ct , M en en d ez can n o test ab l i sh an ad v erse effect. A ssu m i n g th atcal l i n g Ju l i o M en en d ez atth e su p p ressi o n h eari n g i s a p l au si b l e (w h i ch th e g o v ern m en tco n ced es) an d reaso n ab l e al t ern at i v e strat eg y, M en en d ez can n o test ab l i sh th at“ th e al t ern at i v e strat eg y w as n o tfo l l o w ed b ecau se9

it c o n f lic te d w ith th e a tto rn e y ’s e x te rn a l lo y a ltie s .” R e y n o ld s , 2 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 3 . T he m a gi s tr a t e a nd the di s tr i c tc our tc r e di t e d c ouns e l ’ s e xpl a na t i on tha tthe d e c i s i o n wa s s tr a t e g i c a n d n o tb a s e d o n h i s d u ty o f l o y a l ty t o J u l i o M e n e n d e z . To the ext entthatJul i o M enendez and M enendez gave t es t i m on y a tthe evi dent i ary hear i ng t o the ef

fe ctthatcoun se l m ade the deci si on because c ou nsel w as concerned aboutJ ul i o M e ne nde z ge tt i ng i nt o tr oubl e a s ar e s ul tof t e s t i f y i ng a tthe s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g , th e m a g is tr a te a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to c r e d it c ouns e l ’ s e xpl a na t i on di d nota m ountt o c l e a re rr or . S e e A nde r s on v. C i ty of B e s s e m e rC i ty , 470 U . S . 564, 575, 105 S . C t . 1504, 1512, 84 L . E d. 2d 518 ( 1985) ( “ [ W ] he n atr i a l j udge ’ s f i ndi ng i s ba s e d on hi s de c i s i on t o c r e di tthe t e s t i m ony of o n e o f tw o o rm o r e w itn e s s e s , e a c h o f w h o m h a s to ld ac o h e r e n t a n d f a c ia lly pl a us i bl e s t ory tha ti s notc ontr a di c t e d by e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e , tha tf i ndi ng, i f not i nt ernal l y i ncon si st ent , ca n v i rtual l y neverbe cl ea r e rr or. ”) . C ou nsel al so t es t i fi ed th a t M e n e n d e z w a s c o n c e rn e d th a t h is f a th e rc o u ld b e im p lic a te d o re n s n a r e d if h is fa ther t es t i fi ed, and thathe w as “ concerned fr om [M enendez’ s] partthathi s f ather coul d saysom ethi ng thatsom ehow w ou l d i m pl i ca t e hi m i n the m att er. . . . ” H ow e ve r , c ouns e l ’ s t e s t i m ony , c oupl e d w i th J ul i o M e ne nde z ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the w a nt e d t o t e s t i f

y , i s i ndi c a t i ve of

a n a tt e m ptt o ba l a nc e M e ne nde z ’ s c om pe t i ng i n t erest s, n o to f a co n fl i ctb etw een co u n sel ’ s ex t ern al l o yal t i es.10

I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, w e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n f i ndi ng th a t c o u n s e l d id n o t p r o v id e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e d u e to ac o n f lic t o f in te r e s t. AF F I RME D.