FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT OCTOB ER 24, 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. 06- 12305 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4
- 0 1 2 9 2
- CV
- T- 2 4 TBM M A L C O L M F L E M 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 24, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F l or i da s t a t e pr i s one rM a l c ol m F l e m i ng, pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , a ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

orf e de r a l ha be a s r e l i e f

, f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . A f

te rr e v ie w , w e v a c a te a n d r e m a n d th is c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.

I . B AC KG RO UN D F l e m i ng f

i l e d a § 2254 pe t i t i on r a i s i ng the f ol l ow i ng f

ourc l a i m s : ( 1) F l em i ng ’ s c on vi ct i on w as ob t ai ned t hrou gh an un l aw ful l y i nd uced, i nv ol un t ary gui l ty pl e a f

ora va r i e ty of

r e a s ons ; ( 2) F l e m i ng w a s de ni e d e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of
coun se l atvari ou s s t ages of hi s s t at e c ou rtproceedi ng s; (3) the st at e tri al court vi ol at ed the se para t i on -of- po w er s doctri ne by threa t eni ng F l em i ng w i th a l i fe
se nt ence as a habi tual vi ol entfe l on y off ender before the st at e had fi l ed a not i ce s e e ki ng the s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt , s ugge s t i ng tha tthe j udge w a s bi a s e d; a nd ( 4) F l em i ng ’ s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed, i nt eral i a, w hen t he st at e tri al court
n e g le c te d to in f

o r m F le m in g o f

h is r ig h t to a d ir e c t a p p e a l a n d f a ile d to g iv e a f

u ll and fai r hea ri ng on F l em i ng ’ s m ot i on for post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef
. In d en yin g F lem in g ’s § 2 2 5 4 p etit io n , th e d istrict co u rt d isti ll ed F lem in g ’s f o u rc la im s d o w n to tw o is s u e s . F ir s t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t a c la im th a t a defe nd antw as no tful l y app ri se d o f the consequences of hi s gui l ty pl ea or had p l ed g u i l ty b ased o n a fal se st at em en ti n th e p l ea ag reem en ti m p l i cat es th e D u e P ro cess C l a us e . O n thi s ba s i s , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tF l e m i ng’ s s e pa r a t e dueWe reviewan appe al of a district court’s de nial of a § 2254 pe tition de novo. Gamble v. 1 Sec’y, Dept. of Corr ., 450 F.3d 1245, 1247 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 3 p r o c e s s c la im s m e r e ly r e ite r a te d h is c la im s th a t h is g u ilty p le a w a s in v o lu n ta r y . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n a ddr e s s e d the m e r i t s of the s e due pr oc e s s c l a i m s a nd f ound th a t th e r e w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t F le m in g ’s g u ilty p le a w a s u n la w f u lly i nd uced or i nv ol un t ary. S ec on d, the di stri ctcourtaddres se d w hether F l em i ng w as d e n ie d e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a n d a g a in f

o u n d in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to su g g esta v i o l at i o n o f F l em i n g ’ s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s. F l e m i ng f

i l e d thi s a ppe a l
. W e gr a nt e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of a ppe a l a bi l i ty on the l i m i t e d i s s ue of

“ [ w ] he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d C l i s by v. J one s , 960 F . 2d 925, 9 3 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c ) , b y f a ilin g to a d d r e s s a ll o f

th e c la im s r a is e d in
a p p e l l a n t ’ s 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n ?” I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n a ppe a l , F l e m i ng a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota ddr e s s a l l of the
c la im s r a is e d in h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . I n C lis b y , w e in s tru c te d th e d is tr ic t c o u r ts to
r e s o lv e a ll c la im s f

o rr e lie f r a is e d in a p e titio n f

o rw r it o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p r io rto grant i ng or denyi ng re l i ef
. 96 0 F . 3d at93 6. W e c on cl ud ed that , w hen a di stri ct courtfa i l s t o add re ss al l cl ai m s i n t he habeas pet i t i on , w e “ w i l l vaca t e the di stri ct c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e a n d r e m a n d th e c a s e f o rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

a ll
r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s . ” I d. a t938. 1F le min ga lso argue s th at th edis tric t c ourt faile d to a dd

re ss h is o ther d

ueproc e ss c la ims 2 relating to the a cceptanceof his plea, including claims that the state c ourt deprive d Flemingof ad equ at e t i m e t o co nt emp l at e th e p l eao ff er , al l o we d

th e s t at e t o s erv e n o t i ce o f i nt entt o ch ar ge Flemingas a ha

bitual violent felony

offender during theplea he aringand failed to require adequate proof of

his prior convictions. The f acts supportingthese alleg ations areessentially the same a s the fac ts used to support his argument that his plea wa s involuntary . These alleg ations do not constitute separate violations. See Mabry v. J ohnson, 467 U.S. 504, 509, 104 S. C t. 2543, 2 5 4 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( e xp l a i n i n gth atd u ep r o c e s s r e qu i r e s th ata gu i l ty p l e a

b em a d ev o lunt ari l y, intelligently

and not base d on misrepre sentation or coercion). L ikewise, F leming’ s claim that the state c ourt violated the sepa ration-of -powe rs doctrine is i de nti c a l to his du eproc e ss c la im that th estatec ourt c oe rc e d h is guil ty

ple a by thre ate nin ghim with a life sente nce. B oth claims arebased on thesame ope rative f acts a nd alleg e violations of thesamec on sti tution a l right t o d ueproc e ss. Th edis tric t c ourt a dd re sse d th e sea lle g atio ns in i ts rulingreg ardingthe voluntariness of F leming’ s plea. 4 U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f s , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o add re ss tw o o f F l em i ng ’ s due proces s c l ai m s. T he di stri ct court ’ s ordersoug htt o answ eron l y w hether F l em i ng ’ s c on vi ct i on w as ob t ai ned throu gh an un l aw ful l y i nd uced, i nv ol un t ary gui l ty pl ea and fai l ed t o con si der al l eged du e proces s vi ol at i on s thatoccurr ed af t erF l em i ng ent er ed hi s pl ea . N a m e ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a d d r e s s w h e th e rF le m in g ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts
w e r e v io la te d ( 1 ) w h e n th e s ta te c o u r t a lle g e d ly f a ile d to n o tif

y h im o f h is r ig h t to f i l e a di r e c ta ppe a l or( 2) w he n the s t a t e c our ta l l e ge dl y f a i l e d t o pr ovi de a f

ul l a nd fa i r hea ri ng on F l em i ng ’ s m ot i on for post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef
. B e c a u s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o ta d d r e s s th e m e r i t s o f th e s e two c l a i m s , we va c a t e the j udgm e nta nd r e m a nd the r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s f orc ons i de r a t i on by the d is tr ic t c o u r t. 2 V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.