FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 7, 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. 06- 13385 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 0 4 - C V- 1 - DH B R O N N I E L E E C A R R O L L , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s V I C T O R W A L K E R , W a r d e n , 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 7, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

G e o r g iap r is o n e rR o n n ie L e e C a rr o ll 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 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on f orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus . C a rr ol l , w ho w a s c onvi c t e d of bu rgl ary, arm ed robb ery, and fel on y m urder, as se rt s hi s tri al coun se l w as i n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o i n f

o rm th e j u ry th a th i s c o d e f e n d a n t , M i c h a e l R. C r a w f o r d , w h o w a s id e n tif

ie d a s th e s h o o te r , w a s a c q u itte d in as e p a r a te tr ia l. C arrol l m ai nt ai ns the ou t com e of hi s tri al w ou l d h ave been di ff er enthad h i s tri al c ouns e l i nf

orm e d the j ury tha tC r a w f or d ha d be e n a c qui tt e d. H e c l a i m s the in f o rm a tio n w o u ld h a v e c a u s e d th e ju ry to e n te rta in ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t a s to h is gu i l t , part i cul ar l y i n l i gh tof the fa cthe w as po rtra ye d b y the S t at e a s the un arm ed a c c o m p lic e o f

th e m u r d e r , a n d n o t th e a c tu a l s h o o te r . W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ' s gr a ntorde ni a l of a§ 2254 pe t i t i on de no vo , w h ile th e c o u r t's f

a c tu a l f in d in g s a r e r e v ie w e d f

o rc le a re rr o r . See Si m s v . S i n g l eta ry , 155 F . 3d 1297, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . M i xe d que s t i ons of l a w a nd f a c t , i nc l udi ng 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 s , a r e a l s o r e vi e w e d de no vo . I d. W h e r e ac la im w a s a d ju d ic a te d o n th e m e r its in s ta te c o u r t, f e d e r a l c o u r ts s h a ll n o t g r a n t h ab e a s r e lie f: un l es s the adj ud i ca t i on of the cl ai m –(1) re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as 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 e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the S upr e m e C our tof the U ni t ed S t at es ; or (2) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as base d o n an un re as on abl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence p r e s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g .3

2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . A st at e c ou rtdeci si on i s “ contra ryt o” cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw i f e i the r( 1) the s t a t e c our tappl i e d arul e tha tc ontr a di c t s the gove rni ng la w s e t f o r th b y S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e la w , o r( 2 ) w h e n f a c e d w ith m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h ab le f a c ts , th e s ta te c o u r t a rr iv e d a t ar e s u lt di ff er entfr om thatre ac hed i n a S up re m e C ou rtca se . . . . A st at e c ou rt cond uct s a n “ un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on ” of c l ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw i f i ti dent i fi es the corre ctl egal rul e f rom S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw b u t u n r e a s o n ab ly ap p lie s th a t ru le to th e f a c ts o f th e p e titio n e r 's c a s e . A n u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on m ayal so occur i f ast at e c ou rt un re as on abl y e xt ends, or un re as on abl y dec l i nes t o ext end, a l egal pri nci pl e f

rom S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw t o a new cont ext . N ot abl y, an “ un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on ” i s a n “ obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e” ap p lic a tio n . P utm an v . H

e ad , 2 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .

“ T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntgua r a nt e e s c r i m i na l de f e nda nt s the e f

f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . ” Y a rb o ro u g h v. G en try , 12 4 S . C t . 1, 4 (20 03 ). T he l egal s ta n d a r d g o v e rn in g 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 c la im s is s e t f

o r th in Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 104 S . C t . 2052 ( 1984) . I n Str i c kland , th e Su p r e me C our te s t abl i s he d atw o- pr ong t e s tf ora dj udi c a t i ng s uc h c l a i m s . F i r s t , am ova nt m u s t s h o w c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t. I d. at20 64 . T he prop erm ea sure of att orney perf

orm ance i s “ re as on abl enes s und erprevai l i ng profes si on al no rm s. ” I d. at2 0 6 5 . C o u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce i s d efi ci en ti f co u n sel m ad e erro rs so e gr e gi ous tha the ors he w a s notf unc t i oni ng a s the c ouns e l gua r a nt e e d unde rthe S ix th A m e n d m e n t. I

d. a t2064. S e c ond, am ova ntm us ts how the de f i c i e nt4

p e r f o rm a n c e p r e

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . Id . T o pr ove pr e

j udi c e , am ova ntm us ts how the r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty the out c om e w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e ntbutf

or c o u n s e l’s u n p r o f

e s s io n a l e rr o r s . I

d. a t 2 0 6 8 . “I t is n o t e n o u g h f o rth e d e f

e n d a n t to s how tha tthe e rr or s ha d s om e c onc e i vabl e e f f e c ton the out c om e of

the proceedi ng . ” I

d. a t2067. F i na l l y , s i nc e both pr ongs of the t e s tm us tbe m e t , the c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to d e c id e b o th p r o n g s if th e d e f e n d a n t is u n ab le to m e e t o n e . H ol laday v. H

al ey , 2 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . E ven ass um i ng C arrol l ca n est abl i sh hi s c ou nsel ’ s per form ance w as d e f ic ie n t, th e s ta te c o u r t’s ru lin g o n th e p r e ju d ic e p r o n g w a s n o t a n o b je c tiv e ly un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed l aw . T he st at e c ou rtconcl ud ed C a rr ol l f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty of adi f f e r e ntr e s ul tgi ve n the e vi de nc e a ga i ns thi m . W e a gr e e . A ttr i a l , V e r de a n D e a nn A ddi s on t e s t i f i e d s he obs e rve d C a rr ol l a nd C r a w f or d s t a ndi ng ne a rthe m ot e l r oom of V e rnon R aborn, the vi c t i m , appr oxi m a t e l y f i ve m i nut e s be f

or e s he he a r d s ounds r e s e m bl i ng f ir e c r a c k e r s . S h e a ls o te s tif ie d th a t, a f

te rh e a r in g th e lo u d n o is e , s h e s a w C a rr o ll a nd C r a w f

or d runni ng t ow a r ds adum ps t e r , a nd tha tC r a w f or d w a s hol di ng ani ne m illim e te rs e m i- a u to m a tic g u n a t h is s id e . C h r is tin e M ille rte s tif ie d im m e d ia te ly a f te rth e g u n m a n s h o t R ab o rn , a n o th e rm a n c a m e in to th e m o te l r o o m w e a r in g ats hi r tc ove r i ng hi s f

a c e , gr abbe d R aborn’ s w a l l e tf r om unde rthe m a ttr e s s of the5

be d, a nd the n r a n. A ddi t i ona l l y , both A ddi s on a nd R ona l d W y nn, af r i e nd of C a rr o ll’s , te s tif

ie d C a rr o ll a d m itte d h e w a s p r e s e n t w h e n th e v ic tim w a s s h o t. M a noxi aM oor e t e s t i f

i e d s he ove rhe a r d ac onve r s a t i on i n w hi c h C a rr ol l s t a t e d he t ook R aborn’ s w a l l e t . F ur the r , i n hi s t ape d s t a t e m e nt , C a rr ol l c onc e de d he a nd C r a w f or d w e ntt o R aborn’ s m ot e l r oom , a nd C r a w f or d knoc ke d on the door , w e nt i nt o the room , and t ol d the occupants t o g i ve hi m m on ey . T hu s, there w as o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e C a rr o ll w a s ap a r ty to th e c r im e s , g iv e n th a t C a rr o ll ( 1 ) w a s s e e n b y w i tn e s s e s w i th Cr a w f o r d n e a rth e v i c t i m’ s mo t e l r o o m, ( 2) a c know l e dge d hi s c ul pabi l i ty i n the r obbe ry t o othe r s , a nd ( 3) a dm i tt e d he a nd C r a w f o r d w e n t to R ab o rn ’s m o te l r o o m r ig h t b e f o r e th e m u r d e ro c c u rr e d . C arrol l ’ s a rgum entfa i l s the prej ud i ce pron g o f the Str i c kland t e s t , a nd the s ta te c o u r t d id n o t u n r e a s o n ab ly ap p ly f e d e r a l la w o rm a k e a n u n r e a s o n ab le de t e rm i na t i on of

the f a c t s . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the p e titio n f o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . A F F I R M E D .