FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUL 13 , 2006 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- 14847 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 9 8 9 - CV- DLG M A R K H A R R I S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s SECRETA RY FO R TH E D EPA RTM EN T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , J a m e s M c D o n o u g h , 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 l y 13, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ar kH arris, a s tate p riso n erp ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s deni al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 p et i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus. H arri s argues2

th a t h e r e c e iv e d in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l, in v io la tio n o f h is S ix th A m endm entri gh t s, because hi s tri al coun se l m i st akenl y t ol d h i m thatvo l un t ary i nt oxi c a t i on w a s notapos s i bl e de f e ns e t o hi s f

i r s t - de gr e e m ur de rc ha r ge f orthe N o v em b er , 1 9 9 8 k il li n g o f h is lo n g -tim e g irlfrien d . H arris a rg u es th at co u n se l’ s fai l u re t o p u rsu e th i s d efen se co u l d n o th av e b een a t act i cal d eci si o n b ecau se coun se l m i si nform ed hi m of the appl i cabl e l aw . H arri s a l so ar gu es thatthe al l eged defi ci encyprej ud i ce d h i m because, had the j ury bee n i nform ed thathe w as vol unt a r i l y i nt oxi c a t e d, i tw oul d e i the rha ve a c qui tt e d hi m orc onvi c t e d hi m of the le s s e ro f f e n s e o f m a n s lau g h te r . I n M a r c h 2003, H a rr i s f i l e d am ot i on f

orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f i n F l or i da st at e c ou rt . T he F l ori da tri al courtdeni ed hi s m ot i on and the F ou rth D i stri ctC ou rt o f A p p e a ls a f

f irm e d . H a rr is th e n f

ile d h is p e titio n f

o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s w ith the f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt . U nde r28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) , af e de r a l c ourtm a ynotgr a nt habe a s r e l i e f

on c l a i m s tha tw e r e pr e vi ous l ya dj udi c a t e d i n s t a t e c ourt , unl e s s the adj ud i ca t i on “ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w . . . orr e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i on ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the ev i d en ce p resen t ed i n th e S t at e co u rtp ro ceed i n g . ” A st at e co u rt ’ s su m m ary, u n e x p la in e d r e

je c tio n o f

ac o n s titu tio n a l is s u e q u a lif ie s a s a n a d

ju d ic a tio n th a t is3

e nt i t l e d t o de f

e r e nc e . W r i ghtv. S e c ’ yf orD e p’ tof

C orr . , 278 F . 3d 1245, 1254 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e st at e co u rto n l y i s req u i red t o rej ecta cl ai m o n th e m eri t s, no tt o p rovi de an expl anat i on for § 22 54 (d)( 1) t o app l y. Id. at12 55 . A st at e c ou rt de c i s i on tha tdoe s notr e s ton pr oc e dur a l gr ounds a l one i s a n a dj udi c a t i on on the m e r its , r e g a r d le s s o f

th e f o rm in w h ic h it is e x p r e s s e d . I d . a t 1 2 5 5 - 5 6 . T o d em o n strat e i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel , a p ri so n er fi rst“ m u st show thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as [c on st i tut i on al l y] defi ci ent ” ( “ perf orm ance pr ong” ) . S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) . S e c ond, the pr i s one rm us te s t abl i s h tha tthe de f i c i e nt pe r f orm a nc e pr e

j udi c e d the de f

e ns e ( “ pr e

j udi c e pr ong” ) . I d. “ [ T ] he r e i s no r e a s on f orac ourtde c i di ng a n i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m t o appr oa c h the i nqui ryi n the s a m e or de rore ve n t o a ddr e s s both c om pone nt s of the i nqui ryi f

the de f e nda nt m a ke s a n i ns uf

f i c i e nts how i ng on one . ” I d. a t697, 104 S . C t . a t2069. T o p rove the defi ci entperf orm ance pron g o f the S tri ckl and t es t , the pri soner m us ts how tha tc ouns e l m a de e rr or s s o s e r i ous tha the ors he w a s notf unc t i oni ng a s th e c o u n s e l g u a r a n te e d b y th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. I d . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . T he pr ope rm e a s ur e of

a tt orne y pe r f

orm a nc e i s r e a s onabl e ne s s unde rpr e va i l i ng p r o f e s s io n a l n o rm s . I d . a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . T h e g u id in g p r in c ip le is

“ w he the rc ouns e l ’ s c onduc ts o unde rm i ne d the pr ope rf unc t i oni ng of

the4

ad v ersari al p ro cess th atth e tri al can n o tb e rel i ed o n as h av i n g p ro d u ced a j u st re sul t . ” I d. at68 6, 10 4 S . C t . at20 64 . Judi ci al sc rut i ny of coun se l ’ s per form ance m u st b e h ig h ly d ef

er en ti al, an d th er e is a stro n g p re su m p ti o n th at co u n se l’ s c onduc tf

e l l w i thi n the r a nge of

r e a s onabl e pr of

e s s i ona l a s s i s t a nc e . I d. a t689, 104 S . C t . a t2065. 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 ar e a s o n ab le pr obabi 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 p r o c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t.” I d . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 8 . A r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityis o n e s u f f ic ie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e . I d . “ I ti s n o te n o u g h f

o rth e d e f

e n d a n tt o s h o w th a tth e e rr o r s h a d s o me concei vabl e e ff

ec ton the ou t com e of the proceedi ng . ” I d. at69 3, 10 4 S . C t . at 2067. A p et i t i o n er rai si n g an i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel cl ai m m u stsat i sfy a he a vy bur de n of

pr oof i n or de rt o pr e va i l . “ G i ve n the s tr ong pr e s um pt i on i n f a vor o f c o m p e te n c e , th e p e titio n e r ’s b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s io n— th o u g h th e p r e s u m p tio n is noti ns urm ount abl e — i s ahe a vy one . ” C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 1305, 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) ; s e e a ls o R o g e r s v . Z a n t, 1 3 F .3 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( n o tin g th a t “th e c a s e s in w h ic h h ab e a s p e titio n e r s c a n p r o p e r lyp r e v a il on the gr ound of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a r e f

e w a nd f a rbe tw e e n” ) . “ T he5

t esth as n o th i n g t o d o w i th w h atth e b estl aw yers w o u l d h av e d o n e. N o r i s th e t est e v e n w h a tmo s tg o o d l a w y e r s w o u l d h a v e d o n e . W e a s ko n l yw h e th e rs o me reaso n ab l e l aw yer atth e tri al co u l d h av e act ed , i n th e ci rcu m st an ces, as d efen se coun se l ac t ed attri al . ” W hi t e v. S i ng l et ary, 97 2 F . 2d 12 18 , 12 20 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). In F l ori da, before O ct ob er1, 19 99 , vo l un t ary i nt ox i ca t i on w as a r ec og ni ze d de f e ns e t o s pe c i f

i c i nt e ntc r i m e s s uc h a s f i r s t - de gr e e m ur de r . E f

f e c t i ve a s of O c to b e r1 , 1 9 9 9 , v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n h a s b e e n e lim in a te d a s ad e f e n s e in F l ori da. S ee F l a. S t at . § 7 75 . 05 1 (19 99 ). T he defense w as no ta c om pl et e def ense , how e ve r , buta va i l abl e t o ne ga t e s pe c i f i c i nt e nt . G a r dne rv. S t a t e , 480 S o. 2d 91, 92 (F l a. 1 9 8 5 ); C h estn u tv . S t at e, 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 2 (F l a. 1 9 8 9 ). T h u s, th e d efen se of vol unt a ry i nt oxi c a t i on w a s a va i l abl e onl yt o r e duc e the c ha r ge d of f e ns e t o a l e s s e r - i nc l ude d of

f e ns e . V ol unt a ryi nt oxi c a t i on w a s nota n a va i l abl e de f e ns e f or ge ne r a l i nt e ntc r i m e s , i nc l udi ng s e c ond- de gr e e m ur de rorm a ns l aught e r . W i l s on v. S t at e, 87 1 S o. 2d 29 8, 30 1 (F l a. 1stD i st . C t . A pp . 20 04 ). A l tho ug h H arri s c on t ends thathi s c ou nsel shou l d h ave c orre ct l y i nstruct ed h im a s to th e v o lu n ta ry - in to x ic a tio n d e f e n s e , th e s e a lle g a tio n s a r e n o t e n o u g h to ov er com e the heavy burden o f proof requi re d t o sho w i neff ec t i ve as si st ance . S ee C hand l er , 21 8 F . 3d at13 14 . H arri s off er s no exp l anat i on as t o w hy hi s tri al coun se l shou l d h ave pursued the vo l un t ary- i nt ox i ca t i on defe nse. T he evi dence6

pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l a nd a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng de m ons tr a t e d tha tH a rr i s w a s not i nt ox i ca t ed or un der the i nfl uence atthe t i m e he c om m i tt ed the offens e. T here fore , a ny a r gum e nttha tc ouns e l w oul d ha ve m a de r e ga r di ng vol unt a ryi nt oxi c a t i on w ou l d h ave been i ncon si st entw i th the evi dence. S ee , e. g. , W hi t e, 97 2 F . 2d at 1 2 2 1 (h o l d i n g th atd efen se co u n sel ’ s fai l u re t o p resen tv o l u n t ary i n t o x i cat i o n as a d e f e n s e in ac ap ita l- m u r d e rp r o s e c u tio n w a s n o t b e y o n d th e r a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le profes si on al j ud gm entand, thu s, di d n otam ou ntt o i neff ec t i ve as si st ance , i n v i ew o f in co n sisten cy o f in to x icatio n d ef en se w ith d elib er aten es s o f th e d ef en d an t’ s a c tio n s d u r in g th e s h o o tin g s ) . B e c au s e H a rr is h a s n o t p r o d u c e d a n ye v id e n c e to re bu tthe pres um pt i on of com pet ence , he has notshow n thathi s c ou nsel w as in e f f e c tiv e . S e e S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . M or e ove r , H a rr i s ’ s c l a i m a l s o f a i l s be c aus e the r e w a s no pr e j udi c e . T he v o lu n ta ry - in to x ic a tio n d e f e n s e w a s n o t ac o m p le te d e f e n s e , b u t a v a ilab le o n lyto negat e s peci fi c i nt entand reduce the charged offe nse t o a l es se r- i ncl ud ed offens e. H arri s w as foun d g ui l ty of onl y the l es se r- i ncl ud ed offens e of s ec on d-degree m u r d e r , w h ic h is ag e n e r a l- in te n t c r im e to w h ic h v o lu n ta ryin to x ic a tio n w a s n o t a de f e ns e . S e e W i l s on, 871 S o. 2d a t301. I n othe rw or ds , avol unt a ryi nt oxi c a t i on defe nse c ou l d n othave as si st ed H arri s on the se cond -degree m urder char ge. S i nce H a rr i s w a s c onvi c t e d of onl y the l e s s e r - i nc l ude d of f e ns e , due a tl e a s ti n pa rtt o the7

ef fort s of def

ense coun se l , he suff

er ed no prej ud i ce . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt w as corr ec tthatthe st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on w as no tcontraryt o, no r i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , and, thu s, the di stri ct courtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng H arri s’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus. S ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . T h e r e f o r e , w e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. Up o n ar e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . AF F I RME D.