[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 93 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 22 00 -EAK-EAJ SAMUEL SMITHERS , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er - Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Sam

ue l Sm ithe rs , a Flo rid a p ris on er o n d eath ro w, app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s fi rs t p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us , bro ug ht

Case: 11-15936 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 1 of 6pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Th is Co urt g ran te d S mithe rs a li m it edcert ifi cat e o f

ap pe al ab il ity

on hi s cl ai m

th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e atth e p en al ty pha se of hi s capi ta l tria l. Sm ithe rs ass ert s two g ro un ds insupp ort o f th is cla im : (1 ) tr ia l
co un se l fa il edto pro vi de Sm ithe rs ’s exp ertwitne ss , Dr. Mic ha el Mah er, wit h ad equa te ba ck gr ou ndin fo rm at io n t o p erm ita m ean in gf ul ev al ua ti on of S m ithe rs fo r m it ig at io n p ur

po se s; an d (2 ) tr ia l co un se l fa il edto co ns ul t an in de pe nd en t ex pe rt t o re fu te th e te st im on y of t he m ed ic al ex am in er. Bec au se ou r rev ie w of the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce l ead s u s t o c on cl ud e th atSmithe rs ha s fa il edto est ab li sh th athe was p reju di cedby couns el ’s all eg edde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, we aff irm th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t d en y in g h ab eas rel ie f.

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o r de ni al of ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on .” W ardv. Hal l, 5 92 F.3d11 44 , 11 55 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). To warrant habe as rel ie f un de r th e Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (AEDPA), Sm ithe rs m

us t es tabl is h n oton ly tha t h is co ns ti tu ti on al cla im is
m eri to rio us , bu t al so th atth e st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f th atcla im : (1 ) r e su lt ed in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es tabl is he d Fed e r a l la w, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or (2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was b a s e d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e co urt p ro ceed in g. 2 Case: 11-15936 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 2 of 628 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) ; s ee al so Mad is on v. Co m m ’r, Ala. Dep ’t of Co rr., 67 7 F .3d 13 33 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). The m eri ts of S m ithe rs ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m are

“ squa rel y go ve rn ed ” b y

th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng inStr ic kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . See Will ia m s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 39 0, 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 51 1 (2 00 0) . Und er Stric kl an d, Sm ithe rs m us t s ho w th at

“ co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt ” an d t ha t “ th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edth e d efen se .” Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . Sin ce a habe as pe ti ti on er m

us t s ho w bo th de fic ie nc y an d p reju di ce, we m ay

di sp os e o f a Stric kl an d c la im

ba se d o n ade te rm in at io n t ha t a d efen dantha s fa il edto sh ow ei th er p ro ng witho utco ns id eri ng th e o th er. See Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 97 , 10 4 S. Ct . at 2 06 9. We do so inSm ithe rs ’s cas e. Ass um in g, wi th ou t d eci di ng , th atSmithe rs co ul d s ho w hi s tria l co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d t ha t h e co ul d p ie rce AEDPA’s d efer en ce, we 1
It is not necessar

y to devote the r esourc es to dec iding the que stion of whether AEDPA 1 defe renc e applies in this case beca use, eve n if AEDPA def

ere nce doe s not apply , Smithers “ca nnot show prejudice under de novo revie w, the more favor able standa rd for revie w” f

or Smithers. B erghuis v. Thompkins, ___ U.S . ___, ___, 130 S. Ct . 2250, 2265 (2010). “ Courts can . . . de ny

writs of habe as cor

pus under § 2254 by

eng ag ing in de novo revie w when it is unclea r whe ther AED PA defe renc e applies, be cause a habe as petitioner will not be entitled to a writ of habe as cor

pus if his or her c laim is rejecte d on de novo re view, see § 2254(a) .” I d. Insofar as it aids the cour

t in decidingthese c omplex case s, it is notunusual for this Court to aff irm the denial of § 2254 r elief a fter c onductingde novo re view without resolvingwhether 3 Case: 11-15936 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 3 of 6co nc lu de th athe ha s n otde m on st rat edStr ic kl an d p reju di ce ev enun de r de no vo

rev ie w. W e h av e car efu ll y rev ie wedth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s two wri tt en op in io ns whi chto ge th er d et ai l the fact s an d c irc um st an ces un de rlyin g S mithe rs ’s of fen se , tri al , pen al ty pha se , andst at e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs . See Sm ithe rs v. St at e, 18 So . 3d46 0 (F la . 20 09 ) (aff irming de ni al of p os tc on vi ct io n re li ef); Sm ithe rs v. St at e, 82 6 S o. 2 d 9 16 (Fl a. 20 02 ) (aff irming co nv ic ti on s an d d eath
se nt en ce o n d ire ctap pe al ). W e h av e al so in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wedth e en ti re s ta te co urt re co rd , gi ve n due co ns id erat io n t o the pa rti es ’ br ie fs , andha d t he be ne fitof
or al arg um en t. Insu m , we hav e car efu ll y co ns id ered“ ‘the to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—b ot h t ha t ad du cedat t ria l, an d t he ev id en ce ad du cedinth e habe as pro ceed in g’—an d ‘rewei g[ he d] itag ai ns t the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n.’” Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , __

_U.S._

__ , __ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 4 47 , 45 3– 54 (20 09 ) (quo ti ng W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 97 –3 98 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 15 ). Bas edup on th e ev id en ce i n th e st at e co urt re co rdan d S tri ck la nd , we con cl ud e th ere i s n o “ reas on ab le

AEDPA def

ere nce a pplies. See, e.g ., Wellons v. W arde n, 695 F.3d 1202, 1213 ( 11th Cir. 2012); Owen v. F la. Dep’ t of Corr., 686 F .3d 1181, 1201 (11th Cir. 2012); Trepa l v. Sec’y , Fla. D ep’t of Corr., 684 F .3d 1088, 1109–10 (11th Cir. 2012); Pay ne v. Allen, 539 F .3d 1297, 1318 n.18 (11th Cir. 2008). In doing so he re, w e empha siz e that we are not decidingwhether AEDPA def

ere nce applies to the state c ourt’s dec ision. W e ar e of c ourse we ll awar e that the Supre me Court has repudiated the notion that AEDPA’s “ unrea sonablene ss question” is the same a s an appe llate court’s “ confide nce in the r esult it would reac h under de novo revie w.” Har ring ton v. Richter, ___ U.S. ___, ____, 131 S. C t. 770, 786 (2011). 4

Case: 11-15936 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 4 of 6pr ob ab il ity

th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e pr oc eed in g wo ul d h av e b eendi ffer en t.” St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. 20 68 . The ev id en ce p res en te d a t the tri al an d p en al ty pha se s l ead s u s t o c on cl ud e th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng “wou ldba rel y ha ve al te redth e se nt en ci ng pro fil e p res en te d t o t he sen te nc in g ju dg e.” Id . at 7 00 , 10 4 S. Ct . at 2 07 1. Th is is no t a c as e in vo lv in g a n e le ve nt h h ou r in ve st ig at io n a ndth e pr es en ta ti on of o nl y

so m e m it ig at io n. Onth e co nt rary, tria l co un se l co nf ro nt ed Sm ithe rs ’s pen al ty pha se jury with s ub st an ti al m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, in cl ud in g t he te st im on y of f am il y m em be rs , frie nd s, an d t hr ee m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts who te st ifi edto th e ex is te nc e o f co m pe ll in g s ta tu to ry

an d n on st atut ory

mit ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces . See Sm ithe rs , 82 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 21 –2 2. Yet , th e jury retu rn ed
un an im ou s d eath re co m

m en da ti on s as to each of t he two vi ct im s. Id . at 9 22 . And de sp it e th e st at e’s pr es en ta ti on of t hr ee re bu tt al ex pe rts du rin g t he pe na lty ph as e, th e se nt en ci ng co urt s ti ll fou ndan d g av e wei gh t t o s ig ni fic an t s ta tu to ry an d
no ns tatu to ry

m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . Id. The tri al co urt d et erm in edth e subs ta nt ia l ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ou twei gh edth e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces an d s en te nc edSm ithe rs to de ath. Id
.

5

Case: 11-15936 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 5 of 6Whi le we reco gn iz e th atDr. Mah er t es ti fie d dur in g t he po st co nv ic ti on

he ari ng th athe wou ldha ve ch an ge d h is di ag no si s o f Sm ithe rs inli gh t o f ev id en ce th athe sai d was ne ve r gi ve n t o h im by tria l co un se l, we ag ree wi th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s as se ss m en t tha t Dr. Ma he r’s rev is edop in io n d oe s n otest ab li sh a reas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t o ut co m e fo r Sm ithe rs . Sm ithe rs , 18 So . 3dat 46 8– 69 . W e al so ag ree wi th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on th at pr es en ta ti on of a n i nd ep en de ntm ed ic al ex am in er wo ul d n othave m ean in gf ul ly im pa ct edth e ag gr av at in g s id e o f th e le dg er i n t hi s ca se . Id. at 4 71 –7 2. Al th ou gh th e p os tc on vi ct io n e vi de nc e co ul d h av e und erm in edth e st at e’s pe na lty ph as e cl os in g a rg um en t tha t v ic ti m Co wandro wne d, tha t s am e p os tc on vi ct io n t es ti m on y

“ supp orte d, ra th er tha n c on tra di ct ed , th e fi nd in g t ha t Co wanwas s tra ng le d t o de ath.” Id. at47 1. Insh ort, we ag ree wi th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s as se ss m en t o f th e m ed ic al ex am in er i ss ue . Id. at47 1– 72 . Sm ithe rs ’s po st co nv ic ti onev id en ce d oe s n otun de rm in e o urco nf id en ce as to ex is te nc e o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces inth is cas e. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f habe as rel ie f. AFFIRMED.

6

Case: 11-15936 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 6 of 6