[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 75 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 01 51 -WT H-TBS LARRY J. CALDWEL L, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 26 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 1 of 17Larry Cal dwe ll , a Flo rid a p ris on er p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t

co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND A. Ev id ence at Ca ld w el l’s Crimina l Tr ia l i n Sta te Co urt InFlo rid a in20 02 , Cal dwe ll was c ha rg edby info rm at io n wi th burg la ry of a dwe ll in g wi th ba tt ery, in vi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . §§ 81 0.0 2( 1) , (2) (a), an d 7 84 .03 , an d s ex ua l b at te ry , invi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 7 94 .01 1( 5) . In 2 00 4, Ca ld well pr oc eed edto a jury tria l o n the in fo rm at io n. At Ca ld well ’s tri al , Cin dy Lou Lu tt on , th e v ic ti m , tes ti fie d t ha t i n M ay 20 00 sh e awo ke to fin d am anst an di ng inth e d oo rway to he r be dr oo m . The m an pr oc eed edto rap e Lut to n twice . Lutt on di d n otsee th e m an ’s face. Lu tt on di d n ot reca ll hi s ra ce, b utbe li ev edth athe was Afr ic anAm eri can ba se d o n h is m an ne r of sp eech . Lutt onbe li ev edth atth e m anen te redhe r ap art m en t thr ou gh anop en win do w inhe r sp are b edro om be cau se th ere was san d o n h er d es k a ndsh e h ad lo ck edhe r do or s. Aft er the m anlef t, Lu tt on dro ve to he r pa ren ts ’ ho us e, to ldth em wha t h ap pe ne d, an d h er fa th er ca ll edth e p ol ic e. Lut to n d idno t kno w th e m an , sh e co ul d re cal l n o d is ti ng ui sh in g c ha ract eri st ic s, an d s he di d n otreco gn iz e Cal dwe ll in co urt. Oncro ss -ex am in at io n, Lu tt on de ni edth atsh e kne w Cal dwe ll . 2 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 2 of 17Mi ch el le Ben tl y , a reg is te rednu rs e, te st ifi edth atsh e p erfo rm edtes ts on

Lut to n a t the ho sp it al , andth ata va gi na l s wab pe rfo rm edon Lutto n was po si ti ve fo r sp erm . Pete r Ahe rn , a ret ire d d et ect iv e wit h the Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t, te st ifi edth atwhen he wentto Lut to n’s ap art m en t, h e n ot ic ed“ sc uf f m ark s” on th e ex te rio r wal l u nd er o ne of t he win do ws, wh ic h i nd ic at edth atth e win do w m ay ha ve be enth e p oi ntof e ntry . Ins id e th e ap art m en t, Ah ernno ti cedsan d o n t he win do wsi ll an d u nd ern eat h the win do w, whi chals o i nd ic at edth atth e win do w was th e p oi ntof e nt ry . All enCart er, a Se ni orDete ct iv e with t he Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t, te st ifi edth atin hi s i nv es ti ga ti on of Lu tt on ’s apa rtment, h e n ot ic ed“ sm ud ge m ark s” whi ch ap pe aredto be m ad e b y a bare fo oton th e ex te rio r of th e b ui ld in g un de rn eat h awin do w. Cart er al so no ti cedfin ge r m ark s o n t he win do w led ge , and th atitap pe aredth atso m eo ne ha d p ul le d t he m se lv es up th ro ug h t he win do w. Cart er b el ie ve d t ha t the re h adbe ena st ru gg le inLutto n’s b edro om be cau se th e be dr oo m was “ m es se d up,” sp eci fic al ly, it em s wer e kno ck edoff th e b edan d a la m p a ndot he r it em s wer e kno ck edoff anen d t ab le . Cart er d et erm in edth atth ere was a pa lm

pri nton th e in si de of t he win do wsi ll inth e sp are b edro om , su ch th atit ap pe aredth atso m eo ne ha d g rab be d t he in si de of t he win do wsi ll . Cart er al so st at edth atth ere was a co m pu te r sp eak er o n t he de skbe lo w th e win do wsi ll th at

3 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 3 of 17was kn oc ke d o ve r. The d es k was di rect ly und ern eat h the win do w, andif s om eo ne

en te redth ro ug h the win do w, th ey wou ldhave lan de d o n t he de sk . Dete ct iv e Carte r st at edth atth e cas e wen t “ co ld ” u nt il Aug us t 2 00 2, wh en Cart er was no ti fie d t ha t a F lo rid a cri m e lab h ada DNA m at ch itob ta in edth ro ug h a Fl or id a d at ab as e o f co nv ic te d fe lo ns , whi ch ledCart er t o arres t Ca ld well . After Cart er g av e Cal dwe ll Mi ran da warn in gs , Cal dwe ll to ldCart er tha t (1 ) Cal dwe ll 1 was li vi ng in a lo dg e acr os s the st reetfro m Lut to n’s re si de nc e in 20 00 , (2) he was no t i nv ol ve d i n t he bu rg la ry or a ny sex ua l cr im e, an d (3 ) he di d n otkn ow Lu tt on . Cart er re cal le d t ha t Ca ld well was aro un d 6 feettal l an d wei gh edaro un d 1 75 po un ds at t ha t t im e. Cart er the n o bt ai ne d a ndex ecu te d asea rch warran t fo r Cal dwe ll ’s bl oo d i n o rd er t o c om pa re i t t o t he ev id en ce fr om th e cri m e sc en e an d to en su re tha t the re were no erro rs inth e p rio r m at ch . Cart er was pre se ntwhen Cal dwe ll ’s bl oo d was dra wn i n p ris on . Cart er the n s eal edth e b lo odsamples an d ha d t he m tra ns po rte d t o the Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t b efo re the y were s en t t o a Fl or id a cri m e lab fo r co m pa ris on . Em il y Bo ot h Var antes ti fie d t ha t s he work edinth e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t, Orl an do Reg io na l Cr im e Lab or at ory inth e “ se ro lo gy/DNA se ct io n.” Afterbe in g a dm it te d a s an ex pe rt wi tn es s, Vara n s ta te d t ha t s he Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. C t. 1602 (1966). 1 4 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 4 of 17pr ep areda rep ort i n M arch 20 01 reg ard in g t he va gi na l s wab of Lu tt on subm it te d

by the Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t. InJu ly 200 2, Var anlea rn edth atth e DNA on th e swab h adm at ch eda cert ai n p ers on . Varanreque st edth atth e Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep artm en t o bt ai n a no th er s am pl e fro m th atpe rs on to co nf

irm th e m at ch . After rece iv in g h er re qu es te d s am pl e, Varan de te rm in edth atCal dwe ll ’s DNA m at ch ed th e DNA fro m

th e sp erm

sample. Sh eal a Mc Bee , a lat en t fi ng erp rin t ex am in er wi th th e Lak e Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce, t es ti fie d tha t s he rece iv edlat en t fi ng erp rin ts tak enfro m th e win do wsi ll by Cart er, an d t ha t the pri nton th e win do wsi ll m at ch edCal dwe ll ’s fin ge rp rin ts . The st at e rec al le d Lu tt on , who tes ti fie d t ha t s he ne ve r ga ve Cal dwe ll pe rm is si on to en te r he r res id en ce an d n ev er g av e h im pe rm is si on to en ga ge in se xu al in te rco ur se with h er. Afte r McB ee’s t es ti m on y , th e st at e res te d, an d C al dwe ll m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . The s ta te tri al co urt d en ie d C al dwe ll ’s m ot io n. Th e st at e tri al co urt co nf

irmed th atCal dwe ll in te nd edto tes ti fy an d h addi sc us se d h is de ci si on to tes ti fy

with c ou ns el . Cal dwe ll tes ti fie d t ha t h e h ad“ th ree o r fo ur ” p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s, b ut th encla rif

ie d tha t h e h adfiv e p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s an d fi ve m is de m ean or co nv ic ti on s. Ca ld well co nf irmed th atno ne of h is pri orco nv ic ti on s wer e

5 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 5 of 17se xu al ly-rela te d c rimes, th atth e cri m es “ in vo lv e[d ] ro bb ery, ” an d t ha t n o p eo pl e

were h urt i n t he co m

m is si on of tho se cri m es . Cald well st at edth atdu rin g t he ti m e he li ve d a cro ss th e st reetfro m Lut to n’s ap art m en t, h e wou ldsee Lutto n e ve ry da y . Cal dwe ll tes ti fie d t ha t Lu tt onha d e ng ag edinsex ua l i nt erco ur se with h im an d t ha t he ha d l oane d Lu tt on m on ey in co nn ect io n wi th th ei r se xu al rel at io ns hi p. Cal dwe ll was i ns id e Lut to n’s ap art m en t b efo re the in ci de ntto he lp he r m ov e fu rn itur e an d t o p ai ntth e sp are b edro om . Cald well st at edth athe ne ve r br ok e in to Lut to n’s h om e, an d t ha t h e n ev er fo rcedhe r to ha ve sex ua l i nt erco ur se . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Ca ld well co nf irmed th athe ha d fi ve pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s. Two o f th os e co nv ic ti on s wer e ro bb eri es , andCal dwe ll st at edth at ro bb ery di d n otne ces sa ril y in vo lv e ta ki ng so m ethi ng by force , he d idno t “ fo rce an yth in g,” an d h e wou ldno t ag ree t ha t ro bb ery was a vi ol en t cr im e. Cal dwe ll als o ha d apri orco nv ic ti on forbu rg la ry . Cald well st at edth athi s p al m pri nt s wer e in Lut to n’s s pa re b edro om

fro m when he pa in te d t ha t ro om . On re di rectex am in at io n, Ca ld well tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adne ve r be ensk in ny, an d i n 2 00 0 h e wor e si ze 4 6 p an ts an d “ do ub le X” sh irt s. Ca ld well ad de d t ha t h e di d n otkn ow h ow t o c on ta ctpe op le who wou ldha ve kn own hi m an d Lu tt on be cau se ev eryone who li ve d i n t he areaha d l eft . Afte r Cal dwe ll res te d, the st at e rec al le d Lu tt on , who st at edth at(1) sh e 6 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 6 of 17ne ve r ha d h er ap art m en t p ai nt edaft er s he m ov edin , (2) sh e d idno t kno w

Cal dwe ll , (3) sh e h adne ve r se enor s po ke n t o C al dwe ll be fo re, an d (4 ) sh e n ev er ha d s ex ua l i nt erco ur se with C al dwe ll . The jury fo un d C al dwe ll gu il ty of bo th bu rg la ry of adwel li ng with b at te ry an d s ex ua l b at te ry . The s ta te co urt i ni ti al ly sen te nc edCal dwe ll to li fe im pr is on m en t o n b ot h c ou nt s. Fo ll owi ng a se pa rat e st at e co urt co ll at eral he ari ng th atis no t o th erwi se rel ev an t t o the pre se ntap pe al , Cal dwe ll was l at er re-s en te nc edon th e se xu al ba tt ery co un t t o a15 -y ear t erm of i m pr is on m en t, wi th th e te rm to run co nc urren tl y

with h is li fe s en te nc e o n t he bu rg la ry with aba tt ery co un t. B. Cal dw el l’s Dire ct a nd Co ll at era l Appe al s i n Sta te Co urts Cal dwe ll ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on s t o F lo rid a’s Fi fth Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal (“ Fi fth DCA”). Cal dwe ll ’s app el la te co un se l fi le d a n An de rs bri ef an d 2 m ov edto withd raw fro m he r rep res en ta ti on of C al dwe ll . Cou ns el rai se d o ne po te nt ia l i ss ue inth e b rie f, nam el y , whet he r th e tr ia l co urt erredinde nyin g Cal dwe ll ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Caldwell fil eda pr o s e b rie f arg ui ng , in te r al ia , th athi s co nv ic ti on s v io la te d t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e b ecau se th e ba tt ery rel at in g t o b ur gl ary was a le ss er-i nc lu de d c ha rg e o f se xu al ba tt ery. The Ander s v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 2 7 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 7 of 17Fi fth DCA affi rm edCal dwe ll ’s con vi ct io n p er cu ria m .

Cal dwe ll th enfil eda m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f, pu rs ua ntto Flo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0, wh ic h, as am en de d, ra is edm ul ti pl e g ro un ds for rel ie f. In p ert in en t p art , Cal dwe ll cla im edth athe rece iv edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l b ecau se : (1 ) tr ia l co un se l J an ic e Orr’s p retria l i nv es ti ga ti on was in ad equa te ; (2 ) Orr i nc orrect ly adv is edCal dwe ll reg ard in g wh ethe r th e n atur e o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s, ra th er tha n ju stth ei r nu m be r, wou ldbe rev eal edto th e jury if he tes ti fie d; (3) Orr fai le d t o o bjec t dur in g t ria l t o t he do ub le jeop ardy is su e Cal dwe ll rai se d o n d ire ctap pe al ; (4 ) Orr fai le d t o o bjec t t o a n i m pr op er jury in st ru ct io n, wh ic h a ll owe d t he jury to pre su m e Cal dwe ll ’s sp eci fic in te nt ; an d (5 ) Orr fai le d t o ra is e a ch ai n- of -cu st od y ob jecti on reg ard in g t he in it ia l DNA sa m pl e Cal dwe ll pro vi de d wh il e in carc erat edfora pr io r co nv ic ti on . Cald well reque st ed anev id en ti ary he ari ng , th athi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es be va cat ed , or t ha t h e rece iv e a n ew tr ia l o r re-s en te nc in g. At the Ru le 3.8 50 ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Cal dwe ll was re pr es en te d b y ne w ap po in te d c ou ns el , andCal dwe ll , hi s t ria l co un se l Orr, an d Orr ’s in ve st ig at or , Bob Bern ha rd , tes ti fie d. Aft er the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e st at e co urt d en ie d Cal dwe ll ’s Rul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. Th e st at e co urt fi rs t fo un d t ha t Orr’s ef fo rts to fin d Cal dwe ll ’s pro po se d wi tn es se s wer e rea so nabl e, an d thu s, Ca ldwell ’s cla im th athe 8 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 8 of 17rece iv edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b as edon Orr’s fai lure t o l oc at e

witne ss es be fo re tria l was witho utm eri t. W it h re ga rdto Orr rai si ng th e n atur e o f Cal dwe ll ’s con vi ct io ns at t ria l, the st at e 3 .85 0 c ou rt f

ou ndth atOrr an d C al dwe ll ha d d is cu ss edth is tac ti c, as well as th e “pr os an d c on s” of C al dwe ll tes ti fy in g, p rio r to Cal dwe ll ’s tri al . By bri ng in g up Cal dwe ll ’s cri m in al hi st ory , Orr in te nd edto sh ow t he jury th atCal dwe ll di d n ot ha ve a hi st ory

of v io le nc e an d tha t s ex ua l b at te ry was n otco ns is te ntwith Cal dwe ll ’s pri orcri m in al co nv ic ti on s an d h is ch arac te r. Orr al so tes ti fie d, atth e Ru le 3.8 50 ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th atCal dwe ll ha d b eenad am an t ab ou t t es ti fy in g in hi s o wn d efen se an d t ha t h er s tra te gy was to “ ai r th ei r owndi rty lau nd ry ” b efo re th e st at e h adth e o pp ortuni ty to u se itto im pe ach Cal dwe ll . Befo re Ca ldwell te st ifi ed , th e st at e tr ia l co urt h adqu es ti on edCal dwe ll on th e rec or d abo uthi s de ci si on to tes ti fy . The s ta te 3.8 50 co urt n ot edth atOrr’s tes ti m on y was c on si st en t with C al dwe ll ’s ans wers gi ve n t o t he st at e tr ia l co urt atth e ti m e o f tr ia l. The st at e 3.8 50 co urt p oi nt edou t tha t, i n a dd it io n t o Lu tt on ’s tes ti m on y , th ere was ot he r te st im on y an d p hysic al ev id en ce l in ki ng Cal dwe ll to th e cri m es . Accor di ng ly, ev enass um in g t ha t Orr’s t ria l s tra te gy hadbe enerro r, th ere was no reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r th is erro r in st rat eg y , th e res ul t o f Cal dwe ll ’s tri al wou ld ha ve be endi ffer en t. 9

Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 9 of 17The st at e 3 .85 0 c ou rt a ls o d en ie d C al dwe ll ’s cla im th athi s co nv ic ti on s vi ol at eddo ub le jeop ardy be cau se Flo rid a co urts ha d h el d tha t co nv ic ti on s fo r bu rg lary of adwel li ng with b at te ry an d fo r se xu al ba tt ery di d n otvi ol at e do ub le -jeo pardy

pri nc ip le s. Th e st at e co urt ad di ti on al ly den ie d a ll of C al dwe ll ’s ot he r cl ai m s fo r rel ie f. Cal dwe ll ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f hi s R ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n a ndfil eda br ie f th ro ug h c ou ns el , arg ui ng th atOrr’s st rat eg y of r ai si ng th e n atur e o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s attri al was “pa te nt ly unr eas on ab le ” an d i ne ffec ti ve ly execu te d be cau se Orr ul ti m at el y

lef t the jury with t he im

pr es si on th atCal dwe ll was c ap ab le of co m m it ti ng vi ol en t cr im es an d i m pu gn edhi s cr ed ib il it y . Caldwell ad de d t ha t, in de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e o ut co m e m ig htha ve be endi ffer en t, the st at e co urt sh ou ldha ve co ns id ered , in te r al ia , Orr’s effo rts to lo cat e h is po te nt ia l wi tn es se s, whe re s he m ad e n o a tt em ptto co nt actLut to n’s o r Cal dwe ll ’s lan dl or ds , andsh e an d B ern ha rddi d n otvi si t the ne ig hb orho odwher e th e wit ne ss es pre vi ou sl y li ve d. Cal dwe ll co nc lu de d t ha t a r eas on ab le do ub t ex is te d a s t o t he ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l, an d t hu s, h e was en ti tl edto rel ie f. The Fi fth DCA affi rm edpe r curia m th e d en ia l of Cal dwe ll 's R

ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. C. Cal dw el l’s Federa l H ab ea s Pet iti on InApri l 2 00 8, Ca ldwell fil edth e p res en t p ro se p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as 10 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 10 of 17co rp us pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Ca ld well ’s pet it io n ra is edth ree g ro un ds for

rel ie f, na m el y

th at(1) th e st at e tr ia l co urt v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s an d e qu al pr ot ect io n ri gh ts by den y in g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , bec au se th e st at e fai le d t o p ro ve ev ery el em en t o f th e ch arg edoff en se s b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t; (2) hi s co nv ic ti on s re li edon th e sa m e b atte ry , and , th us , vi ol at eddo ub le jeop ardy pri nc ip le s an d h is equa l p ro te ct io n a nddu e p ro ces s ri gh ts ; an d (3 ) he was de ni edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f tr ia l co un se l. As t o h is cla im of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l, Ca ld well st at ed , in te r al ia , th atco un se l (1 ) fai le d t o c on du ct anad equa te pre tri al in ve st ig at io n; (2) m is advi se d h im ab ou t t es ti fy in g a nd whe th er the jury wou ldlearnab ou t the na tu re o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s; (3) fai le d t o ob ject t o a n i m

pr op er jury

in st ru ct io n; an d (4 ) fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he adm is si bi li ty of DNA evi de nc e. Fo ll owi ng th e st at e’s res po ns e, th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d C al dwe ll ’s § 2 25 4 pe ti ti on . As to Cal dwe ll ’s firs t cl ai m th atth e st at e fai le d t o p res en t s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o p ro ve each ele m en t o f th e ch arg edoff en se s an d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Ca ld well pre se nt edno ev id en ce t o re bu t the st at e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs , and , th us , Cal dwe ll fai le d t o m eetth e st an da rdof c le ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e to sh ow wi tha “ hi gh pr ob ab il it y ” th atth e st at e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs were u nr eas on ab le . The 11 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 11 of 17subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce p res en te d a t Ca ld well ’s tri al , alo ng with t he factth at

Cal dwe ll ’s con vi ct io n was affi rm edpe r cu ria m on ap pe al , dem on st rat edth atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o p ro ve th e el em en ts of the ch arg es , andCal dwe ll was n ot en ti tl edto § 2 25 4 re li ef as to th atcla im . Turn in g t o C al dwe ll ’s cla im th athi s co nv ic ti on s v io la te d t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atth e cri m e o f se xu al ba tt ery in cl ud ed anele m en t n otin cl ud edin fir st -d eg ree b ur gl ary with b at te ry , nam el y , sex ua l co nt act . The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er n ot edth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, ap pl y in g th e Bl oc kb ur ge r “ sa m e-el em en ts ” te st , hadco nc lu de d t ha t ch arg es of f irs t-d eg ree 3 bu rg lary with aba tt ery an d s ex ua l b at te ry co ul d b e se pa rat el y

an d c um ul at iv el y pu ni sh ed . Accor di ng ly, Cal dwe ll ’s con vi ct io ns di d n otvi ol at e th e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, an d h e was no t en ti tl edto rel ie f as to th atcla im . As t o C al dwe ll ’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s, the di st ric t co urt fi rs t co nc lu de d t ha t Orr d idno t fa il to co nduc t an ad equa te pre tri al in ve st ig at io n be cau se Cal dwe ll ne ve r ga ve th e sp eci fic na m es of t he all eg edwitne ss es , and Cal dwe ll tes ti fie d a t tria l tha t the witne ss es ha d m ov edan d h e d idno t kno w ho w to reac h t he m . Giv enth e v ag ue na tu re o f th e in fo rm at io n C al dwe ll pro vi de d, Orr’s pe rfo rm an ce d idno t fa ll be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss , and Bloc kburg er v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. C t. 180 (1932). 3 12 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 12 of 17Cal dwe ll fai le d t o d em on strat e th athe was d en ie d e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f tr ia l

co un se l as to th atcla im . Nex t, wi th reg ardto Cal dwe ll ’s cla im th athe was m is advi se d o n t es ti fy in g, Orr te st ifi edat the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atCal dwe ll was a da m an t ab ou t t es ti fy in g. The DNA andfin ge rp rin t ev id en ce t ie d C al dwe ll to th e cri m e, an d C al dwe ll ’s de fen se was t ha t h is sex ua l re la ti on sh ip with Lu tt on was c on se ns ua l. Pri orto tri al , Orr d is cu ss edwith C al dwe ll he r st rat eg y to rai se th e n atur e o f Cal dwe ll ’s pri or co nv ic ti on s b efo re the st at e d id , andhe ag reedwith t ha t s tra te gy. Bec au se Cal dwe ll ’s pri orco nv ic ti on s wo ul d b e ex po se d o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n, Orr be li ev edth atth e jury sho ul d kno w th atth e p rio r co nv ic ti on s wer e n on -v io le nt fel on ie s, wh ic h the di st ric t co urt n ot edwas areas on ab le an d c omm on st rat eg y . Cal dwe ll fai le d t o a rg ue th atOrr’s st rat eg y was unr eas on ab le an d t ha t h e su ffer ed pr ejud ic e as a res ul t. Acco rd in gl y , Cal dwe ll fai le d t o s ho w th atco un se l’s t act ic al de ci si on was u nr eas on ab le or t ha t the de ci si onres ul te d i n p reju di ce. As t o C al dwe ll ’s arg um en t tha t Orr f ai le d t o o bjec t t o i m

pr op er jury in st ru ct io ns , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Orr d idno t p ro vi de in ad equa te ass is ta nc e fo r fai li ng to ob

ject t o t he pre su m

pt io n- of -in te ntjury in stru ct io n b ecau se th e ev id en ce s ho wedCal dwe ll en te redLut to n’s h om e “ st eal th il y an d wi th ou t pe rm is si on ,” whi ch was e no ug h t o c on cl ud e th athe ha d t he in te ntto co m m itbo th 13 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 13 of 17ba tt ery an d abu rg la ry . There fo re, Cal dwe ll was n oten ti tl edto rel ie f as to th at

cl ai m . As t o C al dwe ll ’s cla im th atOrr un reas on ab ly fail edto ob ject t o t he adm is si bi li ty of DNA evi de nc e, Cal dwe ll fai le d t o s ho w th atth e ch ai n o f cu st od y was anis su e b ecau se , un de r Fl or id a la w, th e st at e n eedno t es tabl is h the ch ai n o f cu st od y wher e th e rec or d d oe s n otde m on st rat e th atth ere was a pr ob ab il it y of ev id en ce t am

pe rin g. Cal dwe ll off

eredno gro un ds to be li ev e th atth e ev id en ce was ta m pe redwith s uc h t ha t Orr s ho ul d h av e rai se d t he ch ai n- of -cu st ody is su e. Mo reo ve r, th e DNA was p ro pe rly ob ta in edun de r Fl or id a la w, andCal dwe ll di d no t p res en t an y

ev id en ce i nd ic at in g o th erwi se . Becau se th e DNA evi de nc e was adm is si bl e an d t he re was no in di cat io n t ha t the ev id en ce was tam pe redwith, the ch ai n- of -cu st od y is su e wou ldha ve be enfut il e an d C al dwe ll was n oten ti tl edto rel ie f on th atcla im . The di stric t co urt g ran te d C al dwe ll a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y onhi s cl ai m s re ga rd in g wh ethe r (1 ) th e st at e tr ia l co urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ; (2 ) hi s co nv ic ti on s v io la te d d oubl e jeop ardy ; an d (3 ) he was de ni edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b as edon hi s t ria l co un se l’s (a ) fai lu re t o co nduc t an ad equa te pre tri al in ve st ig at io n, (b ) m is advi si ng Cal dwe ll ab ou t te st ifyin g, (c ) fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he jury in st ru ct io ns , and(d) fai lu re t o o bjec t t o 14 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 14 of 17th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e DNA evi de nc e. II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Cal dwe ll fir starg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is cl ai m reg ard in g t he st at e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Cald well co nt en ds th atth e o nl y rel ev an t ev id en ce ad du cedag ai ns t h im attri al was the DNA evi de nc e co ll ect edfro m th e v ic ti m

an d m at ch edto hi m , whi ch , com

bi ne d wi th ev id en ce tha t t en de d t o e st ab li sh hi s i nn oc en ce, d idno t su st ai n t he st at e’s bu rd enof p ro of be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Cal dwe ll co nc lu de s th atitis hi gh ly pro babl e th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s re li an ce o n the st at e co urt’s factua l fi nd in gs is erro ne ou s, an d t ha t h e h as de m on st rat eda hi gh pro babi li ty tha t th e st at e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs were u nr eas on ab le . Cal dwe ll ne xtarg ue s t ha t h is co nv ic ti on s v io la te th e Doubl e Je op ardy Cl au se be cau se th e se xu al ba tt ery was th e so le ba tt ery th e st at e rel ie d upo n t o fo rm th e b as is forth e co nv ic ti on of b ur gl ary of a dwe ll in g wi th ba tt ery. Fi na ll y , Cal dwe ll arg ue s t ha t h e d idno t re cei ve co ns ti tu ti on al ly effect iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b ecau se hi s t ria l co un se l: (1) fai le d t o c on du ctanad equa te pr etria l i nv es ti ga ti on when sh e d idno t l oc at e an d c al l p ot en ti al ex cu lp at ory witne ss es ; (2 ) m is advi se d h im ab ou t t es ti fy in g a ndth e in tro du ct io n o f in fo rm at io n ab ou t the nu m

be r an d n atur e o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s, wh ic h ru in edhi s cr ed ib il it y 15 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 15 of 17be fo re the jury; and(3) fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he adm is si bi li ty of DNA evi de nc e, as

th ere was a hi gh pro babi li ty tha t the DNA evi de nc e was tam pe redwith, s uc h t ha t co un se l was “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly com pe ll ed ” to ob

ject t o t he ch ai n o f cu st od y . 4 Inco ns id eri ng a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 54 habe as pe ti ti on , we rev ie w fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r an d l eg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo . Rho de v. Hall , 58 2 F .3d12 73 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Lik e th e d is tri ctco urt, we ar e al so rev ie win g t he st at e h ab eas co urt’s d eci si on . See Pu tm anv. Head , 26 8 F .3d12 23 , 12 40 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), as am en de d b y th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ct(“ AEDPA”), a fed eral co urt m ay no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f ona st at e p ris on er’s cl ai m

th atwas d en ie d o n t he m eri ts inst at e co urt u nl es s t he st at e co urt d eci si on was (1 ) “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es ,” or(2) “ba se d o n an u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Und er the “ co nt rary to” claus e o f § 2 25 4( d) , a fed eral habe as co urt m ay gr an t a p et it io ne r habe as co rp us rel ie f if th e st at e co urt arriv es at aco nc lu si on On appe al, Caldwell has e x plicitly abandone d his claim reg ardingcounsel’s f ailure to 4 object to the jury

instruction. 16 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 16 of 17op po si te to th atreac he d b y th e Supr em e Co urt o n aqu es ti on of l aw orif t he st at e co urt, o n asetof m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fact s, d eci de s a c as e d iff eren tl y th an th e Supr em e Co urt h as . W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 2- 13 , 12 0 S . Ct. 14 95 , 15 23 (20 00 ). Und er the “un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” claus e, a fed eral co urt m ay gra nta pe ti ti on er h ab eas co rp us rel ie f if th e st at e co urt i de nt ifi es th e co rrec t go ve rn in g l eg al pri nc ip le fro m th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on s b utun reas on ab ly ap pl ie s t ha t p rin ci pl e to th e fac ts of t he pri so ne r’s cas e. Id . Afte r rev ie win g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th atno ne of Cal dwe ll ’s cla im s h as m eri t o r warra nt s fu rth er d is cu ss io n. Ou r ex haus ti ve hi st ory of th e st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs read il y sh ows th atbo th th e ev id en ce an d l aw supp orte d t he st at e co urts ’ de ci si on s. Ca ld well ha s fa il edto de m on st rat e th atan y of hi s cl ai m s i nv ol ve s a s ta te co urt d eci si on th at(1) was c on tra ry to , or i nv ol ve d anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, o r (2 ) was “ba se d on anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n th e St at e co urt p ro ceed in g.” See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f Cal dwe ll ’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n. AFFIRMED.

17 Case: 11-13752 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 17 of 17