FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 4, 2008 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. 07- 14174 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 9 6 4 - CV - A SG M I C H A E L O J E D A , 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 , S e c r e ta ry , D e p a r tm e n t o f C o rr e c tio 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 4, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Oj e da alsoargue s th at hesh ould h avebe e n gra nte d a n evide nti ary

he aringon

hisc laims 1 of ineff ectivene ss. Whi le not specific ally covered by

the COA, wehave jurisdiction to consider the issue bec ause it is subsumed into the question of whether counsel wa s ineffe ctive. See Murray v. United States , 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998) (findingthat an evidentiary he aringwa s w arrante d o n a n in e ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l c laim even th ough th eCO A o nly specific ally

addre ssed the issue of whether the movant re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e). An e vide nti ary

he aring , h ow e ver, wa s unn e c e ssa ry be c a us ethetrial trans c riptssu ff ic iently a dd re sse d th eiss ue , a

nd thu s a hea ringwould not have added any new infor

mation. See Schriro v. Landrigan , 550 U.S. ___, ___, 27 S. Ct . 1933, 1940, 167 L . Ed. 2d 836 (2007) (holding that if therec ord re futes the f actual alle g atio ns in t

hepe tition

or oth e rwisepre c lude s h a

be a s re lie f, a

dis tric t c ourt

is n ot re quire d to hold an evidentiar

y hearing) . 2 P e t i t i one rM i c ha e l Oj e da ( “ Oj e da ” ) , a F l or i da s t a t e pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

orhabe a s c orpus . W e gr a nt e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty ( “ C O A ” ) on the i s s ue of w he the rOj e da r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . Oj e da a r gue s tha the r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l i n thr e e w a y s : ( 1) c ouns e l f a i l e d t o m ove t o s uppr e s s a c onf e s s i on tha the n e v e rg a v e a n d w a s o b ta in e d in v io la tio n o f th e la w ; ( 2 ) c o u n s e l f

a ile d to i nt e r vi e w , de pos e , a nd i nve s t i ga t e s t a t e a nd de f e ns e a l i bi w i tne s s e s ; a nd ( 3) c ouns e l f a i l e d t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd i ntr oduc e e xc ul pa t ory e vi de nc e of a f ootpr i nt foun d atthe sc ene of the cr i m e. 1

“ W hen revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a habeas pet i t i on , w e r evi ew q u e s tio n s o f

la w a n d m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f la w a n d f

a c t de no vo , and fi nd i ng s of f ac t for c l ea r e rr or. ” N

yla n d v. Mo o re , 2 1 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . B ecau se Oj ed a fi l ed h i s fed eral h ab eas p et i t i o n aft er A p ri l 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 , th i s case3

i s gov erned b y the A nt i t errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ct(“ A E D P A ”) , w hi ch “ es t abl i shes a hi gh l y def er ent i al st andard for re vi ew i ng st at e c ou rt j ud gm ent s. ” McN

a irv . C a m

p b e ll , 416 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A n appl i c a t i on f ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus m a y be gr a nt e d w he n a ny c l a i m tha tw a s a dj udi c a t e d on the m e r i t s i n S t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ngs r e s ul t e d i n a d e c is io n th a t w a s c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly es t abl i shed F eder al l aw or “ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as base d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). T he S up re m e C ou rthas s ai d that

U nde rthe ‘ c ontr a ry t o’ c l a us e , a f e de r a l ha be a s c our tm a y gr a nt the w ri ti f the st at e c ou rtarri ves a ta c on cl usi on op po si t e t o that re ac hed b y thi s C ou rton a quest i on of l aw or i f the st at e c ou rtdeci des a c a s e d if

f e r e n tly th a n th is C o u r t h a s o n a s e t o f m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h ab le f

a c ts . U n d e rth e ‘u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ’ c la u s e , a f e de r a l habe a s c our tm a y gr a ntthe w r i ti f the s t a t e c our ti de nt i f

i e s the c orr e c tgove rni ng l e ga l pr i nc i pl e f r om thi s C our t ’ s de c i s i ons but un re as on abl y app l i es thatpri nci pl e t o the fa ct s of the pri soner’ s c as e. W i l l i am s v . T

ay l or , 529 U . S . 362, 412- 413, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1523, 146 L . E d. 2d 389 ( 2000) . T he de t e r m i na t i on of a f a c tua l i s s ue m a de by a s t a t e c our ts ha l l be pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c tunl e s s r e butt e d by the appl i c a ntby c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng evi dence. 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (1). T o d em on stra t e i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , a pri soner m ustshow that4

coun se l ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand t hatthe defi ci entperf orm ance prej ud i ce d th e d e f e n s e . Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ). T here i s no rea son for a c ou rtdeci di ng an i neff ec t i vea s s is ta n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c la im to ap p r o a c h th e in q u iry in th e s a m e o r d e r , o re v e n to a ddr e s s both c om pone nt s of the i nqui ry , i f

the pe t i t i one rm a ke s a n i ns uf f i c i e nt s h o w in g o n o n e . I

d. a t 6 9 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 9 . T he pr ope rm e a s ur e of

a tt orne y pe r f

or m a nc e i s r e a s ona bl e ne s s unde rthe p rev ai l i n g p ro fessi o n al n o rm s, an d j u d i ci al scru t i n y o f co u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce m u st b e h ig h ly d e f

e r e n tia l. I

d. a t688, 104 S . C t . a t2065. I f the r e c or d i s i nc om pl e t e or un cl ea r abo utcoun se l ’ s a ct i on s, then i ti s pre sum ed thatcoun se l exer ci se d r e a s o n a b le p r o f

e s s io n a l ju d g m e n t. C ha nd l erv. U ni t ed Stat es , 218 F . 3d 1305, 1314 n. 15 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( e n banc ) . C ouns e l i s noti nc om pe t e nts o l ong a s the p a r tic u la rap p r o a c h ta k e n c o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d s o u n d s tr a te g y . I d. a t 1 3 1 4 . T o p r o v e p r e

ju d ic e , “[ t]h e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t th e r e is a r e a s o n ab le pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” Str i c kland , 46 6 U . S . at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at 2068. T he c our tm us ta l s o c ons i de rthe t ot a l i ty of the e vi de nc e be f

or e the j udge or ju ry in m a k in g th e p r e

ju d ic e d e te r m in a tio n . I d. a t 6 9 5 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 9 .

“ T h[e] corr ec tapproach t ow ar d i nv es t i gat i on re fl ec t s the re al i ty thatl aw ye rs5

do no tenj oy the benefi tof endl es s t i m e, ener gy or fi nanci al re source s. ” R og er s v . Zant , 13 F . 3d 38 4, 38 7 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T o b e e ff ec t i ve, a l aw ye r i s notre qu i re d t o “ pu rs ue everypath u nt i l i tbear s f rui tor un t i l al l ho pe w i thers . ” W i l l i am s v . H e ad , 1 8 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “T h e q u e s tio n is w hether . . . endi ng an i nv es t i gat i on shortof exhaust i on , w as a r ea sonabl e t ac t i ca l d eci si o n . If so , su ch a ch o i ce m u stb e g i v en a stro n g p resu m p t i o n o f co rrectn ess, and t he i nq ui ry i s gener al l y a tan end. ” Mi l l s v. S i n g l eta ry , 6 3 F .3 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A la w y e r ’s f

a ilu r e to r a is e a m e r itle s s is s u e c a n n o t p r e ju d ic e a c lie n t. See U n ite d S ta te s v . W

in fie ld , 960 F . 2d 970, 974 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . T he bur de n of pers uasi on i s on the pet i t i on ert o p rove, by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence, that c o u n s e l’s p e r f

o r m a n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . C ha nd l er , 2 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 3 . A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t Oje d a f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a tth e s t a t e h ab e a s c o u r tu n r e a s o n ab l y ap p l i e d f e d e r a l l a w i n d e n y i n g h i s c l a i ms of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l be c a us e the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s w oul d ha ve b e e n m e r itle s s , a n d c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n to n o t c a ll a lib i w itn e s s e s w a s a r e a s o n ab le s tr a te g ic d e c is io n . M o r e o v e r , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin f in d in g th a t c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to in tr o d u c e th e f o o tp r in t w a s n o t p r e

ju d ic ia l to Oje d a b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e w o u ld n o t h a v e r e a s o n ab ly le d to a d if f e r e n t o u tc o m e .6

A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t d e n y in g h ab e a s r e lie f . AF F I RME D.