FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 24 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 04 97 -HLA-TEM
GARRETT SIMS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, FAY andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Garre ttSim s, a Fl or id a p ris on er, p ro se app eal s t he de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND Afte r hi s fi rs t t ria l en de d i n am is tri al , Sim s was co nv ic te d i n h is sec on d tri al . To un de rs ta ndth e is su e o n app eal , we rev ie w whathapp en edat b ot h t ria ls
. A. Firs t Sta te Co urt T ri al an d Mis tri al In20 01 , Sim s was ch arg edwith t wo co un ts of d riv in g u nd er the in flu en ce,
cau si ng ser io us bo di ly inju ry , invi ol at io n o f Fl or id a St atut es § 3 16 .19 3( 3)
. Sim s 1 st op pe d h is pi ckup tru ck

in th e m id dl e o f th e h ig hwa y at n ig ht . Ano th er v eh ic le th enst ru ckSim s’s s to pp edtru ck , res ul ti ng in in juri es to th e o th er v eh ic le ’s
oc cupant s. Dur in g t he 20 03 tri al , Roy W el ch , a tru ckdri ve r, te st ifi edth aton th e n ig ht of Ju ly 27, 2 00 1, h e en co un te reda pi ckup tru ckst op pe d i n t he m id dl e o f th e ro ad wit h i ts li gh ts on . As W el ch m an eu ve redhi s 1 8- whe el er ar ou ndth e p ic kup t ru ck , he co ul d n otsee an y on e in si de th e p ic kup t ru ckor o n t he si de of t he roa d. Welch To convict a

person unde r § 316.193(3) , the state must show that, in addition to the 1 defe ndant beingguilty

of the off ense of drivingunder the influence by “drivingor in ac tual phy sical control of

a vehic le” with a blood- alcohol leve l of 0.08 or more , the def endant a lso “oper ate[d] a vehicle” a

nd “by rea son of such ope ration” c aused or contributed to ca

using se rious bodily injury to another. See Fla. Stat. § 316.193(1) , (3). 2dr ov e to hi s n earb y ho m e an d c al le d 9 11 to advi se au th or it ie s o f th e st op pe d pi ckup tru ck
. W it hi n abo utfif

te enm in ut es , W el chreturne d t o t he st op pe d p ic kup tru ckto pl ace f la sh ers aro un d i t. By th atti m e, an ot he r ve hi cl e al read y ha d s tru ck

th e pi ckup tru ckfro m

be hi nd . W el ch fou ndDefen da ntSim s wal ki ng aro un d t he cras h si te an d s aw be er ca ns sca tt eredacro ss th e ro ad
. Ro na ldAll en , th e driv er o f th e o th er v eh ic le , tes ti fie d t ha t h e was dri vi ng wit h h is fou r-y ear- ol d s on sl eep in g n ex t t o h im . Alle n l oo ke d d own at h is so n a nd th enup an d s aw th e p ic kup t ru ckst op pe d i n t he m id dl e o f th e ro ad , with t he dri ve r sl um pe d o ve r th e whe el . Alle n app li edhi s b rak es , bu t co ll id edwith t he rearof t he pi ckup tru ck . Alle n wen t t hr ou gh th e fro ntwin ds hi el d, l an de d i n t he roa d a nd br ok e h is st ern um . His s on ha d abro ke n l eg . A hel ic op te r fl ew All enan d h is so n to th e h os pi ta l. Troo pe r Ri ch ardGil l, a Fl or id a Hig hwa y Patro lm an , res po nd edto th e cra sh
an d t es ti fie d abo uthi s i nv es ti ga ti on . After s m el li ng alc oh ol on Defen da ntSim s’s br eat h, Tro op er Gi ll adm in is te redfie ldso br ie ty test s, wh ic h i nd ic at edth atSim s
was im pa ire d. Al th ou gh Troo pe r Gil l d idno t p ers on al ly obs erv e Si m s d riv in g, Si m s ad m it te d h e was dri vi ng th e truc k. Tro op er Gi ll di d n otob se rv e an y vi si bl e in juri es on Sim s, an d S im s t ol d Tro op er Gi ll he was n othu rt. Si m s al so to ld
3Troo pe r Gil l h e was a di ab et ic , bu t Si m s d idno t ap pe ar t o b e aff ect edby his di ab et es at t he ti m e, on ly int ox ic at ed . Whe n Tro op er Gi ll ask edSim s wh ethe r he
ne ed edm ed ic al ass is ta nc e, Si m s i ni ti al ly ind ic at edhe di d n otne edto go to th e ho sp it al . Whe n Tro op er Gi ll ex pl ai ne d t ha t Si m s co ul d e it he r be arre st edat t he
sc en e o r tr an sp orte d t o t he ho sp it al , Sim s el ect edto go to th e h os pi ta l. A la te r bl oo d t es t i nd ic at edth atSim s’s b lo odalc oh ol lev el was .1 13 or .1 14 , abo ve th e le ga l l im itof .0 8. Si m s’s d efen se was t ha t h e h adno t b een dri vi ng th e truc k. Si m s’s d efen se
co un se l el ic it edtes ti m on y fro m sev eral witne ss es to th e aft erm ath o f th e
cras h— in cl ud in g Welch , Troo pe r Gil l, an ot he r tr oo pe r an d apa ram ed ic —t ha t Si m s was ou ts id e th e truc k a ndap pe aredun in jure d. The Sta te so ug htto in tro du ce Si m s’s h os pi ta l re co rd s i nd ic at in g t ha t Si m s
was in jure d wh enhe st ru ckhi s h eadon th e win ds hi el d o f hi s p ic kup t ru ck . The St at e subp oe ne d t he ho sp it al reco rd s t o c om pl et e it s fi le . Neit he r th e St at e n or Si m s’s co un se l s aw th e co nt en ts of t he ho sp it al s re co rd s u nt il th e rec or ds
cu st od ia n p ro du cedth em in co urt t he da y

of t ria l. Si m s’s co un se l o bjec te d be cau se th e g ov ern m en t h adno t p ro du cedth e rec or ds du rin g d is co ve ry an d h ad
no t fo ll owe d F lo rid a law inob ta in in g t he m . Howev er, Si m s’s co un se l ad de d t ha t he di d “ no t i n a ny way

m ean [ ] to su gg es t t ha t t he Sta te was t ry in g t o a m bu sh th e 4de fen se . . . .”

The st at e tr ia l co urt fo un d t ha t al lo win g t he reco rd s t o c om e in “ atth e la st
m in ut e” was “ hi gh ly prejud ic ia l.” Th e st at e tr ia l co urt re fu se d t o a dm itth e rec or ds be cau se th ey

“ sh ou ldha ve be endi sc lo se d” du rin g d is co ve ry , andbo th pa rti es

“ sh ou ldha ve kn own ab ou t t he m way be fo re n ow.” Th e St at e as ke d t o “ res erv e th e rig htto cal l i t fo r reb ut ta l i f th e d efen da ntpu ts on ev id en ce t ha t h e [was ] no t i n t he
ve hi cl e.” The tri al co urt ru le d t ha t t he reco rd s co ul d n otbe adm it te d o n re bu tt al
. The Sta te th enin di cat edth atitin te nd edto reca ll Troo pe r Gil l t o t es ti fy th at , aft er the cras h, Si m s s ai d h e was weari ng th e driv er-s id e se atbe ltan d was in jure d in th e cra sh . The tria l co urt ex pr es se d c on cernab ou t the pro se cu to r rec al li ng Troo pe r Gil l t o a skqu es ti on s ab ou t i nju rie s d oc um en te d i n t he ex cl ud edho sp it al
reco rd s. Si m s’s co un se l o bjec te d t o Tro op er Gi ll be in g re cal le d, s ta ti ng , “ [I]f th ey ’re in cl in edto go in to th at , th enI wou ldm ov e fo r a m is tri al . I do n’t wan t t o
m ov e fo r a m is tri al at t hi s p oi ntin ti m e b as edon th e st at e o f th e rec or d. Ho wev er, y ou kn ow, I m ean it ’s real di ffi cu ltwhen y ou ge t ce rta in qu es ti on s an d a ns wers
ou t o f wit ne ss es an d youpro ceedalo ng an d the n a ll of asu dd enth ere’s g oi ng to be a ch an ge .” The tri al co urt s tre ss edth atth e h os pi ta l re co rd s “ br in g[ ] ou t t hi ng s t ha t ar e
no t ev enclo se to what ’s com in g o uthe re o n t he tes ti m on y .” Afte r fu rth er 5di sc us si on , th e tr ia l co urt s ta te d t ha t i t was go in g t o d ecl are am is tri al . The St at e

reque st edpe rm is si onto sp eakwith S im s’s co un se l b efo re the tri al co urt d ecl areda
m is tri al . The St at e’s an d S im s’s co un se l t he n h ada br ie f, of f-the -rec or d di sc us si on in th e h al lway. Whe n t he y returne d, Si m s’s co un se l s ta te d, “ Ju dg e, we’ll ab id e b y

th e Co urt’s ru li ng I th in k i s t he co ns en su s.” The st at e tr ia l co urt the n d ecl areda m is tri al an d d is ch arg edth e jury. The tri al co urt ag reedto de fen se co un se l’s re qu es t t o p la ce t he cas e o n asi xty -d ay cal en da r so Sim s co ul d t ak e d ep os it io ns . B. Seco nd Sta te Co urt T ri al InOcto be r 20 03 , pri or

to th e se co ndtri al , Sim s’s co un se l fi le d am ot io n t o di sm is s o n d oubl e jeop ardy gro un ds . The m ot io n a rg ue d t ha t t he tri al co urt’s s ua sp on te de cl arat io n o f a m is tri al ba rredretria l b ecau se Sim s d idno t ad op t t he
m is tri al rul in g a ndjeop ardy att ach ed . The St at e res po nd edth attri al co un se l’s st at em en t t ha t Si m s wo ul d “ ab id e” b y th e tr ia l co urt’s ru li ng am ou nt edto a
co ns en t t o t he m is tri al un de r Fl or id a law, cit in g Ad ki ns v. Sm it h, 2 05 So . 2d53 0, 53 1 (1 96 7) (fi nd in g d efen se co un se l’s s ta te m en t t ha t h e h ad“ no th in g t o s ay ” o n th e st at e’s pr op os edm ot io n fo r a m is tri al was c on se nt ). The st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e tr ia l co urt s ta te d: I ha ve go ne ov er th is an d go ba ck lo ok in g at th e r e c o r d an d
6rem em be rin g wha t to ok pl ace. I jus t fel t at th a t ti m e th at th e pr ob le m wit h th e reco rd - - th e r e c o r d s w o ul d ha ve le d in if I sa id th ey were co m in g in , th en th e de fen se wou ld ha ve be en hi gh l y p r e ju d ic ed
. If I di dn ’t le t th em in th e st at e was g o i n g to be pr ejud ic ed an d I fel t li ke us in g t he lan gu ag e th ey

us edhe re wi th th e to ta li ty of th e si tu at io n an d al l it was go in g on at t ha t parti cu la r po in t in or de r fo r jus ti ce to be se rv ed th at a m is tri al ne ed edto be de cl ared an d ge t th at di sc ov ery an d de al wit h it an d th en co m e ba ck an d try th e cas e. So I am go in g to de ny th e m ot io n, M r. Tay lo r, an d g o t o t ria l. Inth e se co ndtri al , th e jury fou ndSim s g ui lt y on bo th co un ts . Sim s was sen te nc ed to co ns ecu ti ve term s o f 60 m on th s’ and43 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Si m s ap pe al edth e co nv ic ti on s, ar gu in g t ha t the tri al co urt h aderre d i n de nyin g h is m ot io n t o d is m is s b ecau se Sim s d idno t co ns en t t o t he mis tri al an d t he
m is tri al was n otsupp orte d b y m an ife stne ces si ty. The Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal (“ Fi rs t DCA”) su m m ari ly affirm ed
. Si m s t he n fi le d apro se s ta te pe ti ti on forhabe as co rp us rel ie f wit h the Fir st DCA, all eg in g, i nt er al ia , th athi s t ria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r co ns en ti ng to th e m is tri al . The Fi rs t DCA d en ie d S im s’s s ta te habe as pe ti ti on . C. Rule 3.8 50 Mot io n fo r Pos t-co nv ic tio n Rel ie f InApri l 2 00 6, Si m s fi le d apro se m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua nt to Flo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0 i n t he Cir cu itCo urt o f th e Thi rd Ju di ci al Cir cu itof F lo rid a (“ 3.8 50 co urt” ). Rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al , Sim s ar gu ed th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e inco ns en ti ng to th e tr ia l co urt’s s uasp on te
7de cl arat io n o f a m is tri al be cau se th ere was no m an ife stne ces si ty for a m is tri al an d

co un se l’s co ns en t d ep riv edSim s o f hi s d oubl e jeop ardy rig ht s. The 3.8 50 co urt i ni ti al ly den ie d re li ef o n S im s’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e cl ai m , bu t t he n g ran te d S im s’s m ot io n fo r reh eari ng an d s ch edul edanev id en ti ary he ari ng . At th e h eari ng , Sim s’s 3 .85 0 c ou ns el st at edth attri al co un se l was un ab le to att en d. In st ead , Sim s s ub m it te d t wo l et te rs by tria l co un se l, wh ic h wer e ad m it te d i n l ie u o f te st im on y . Tria l co un se l’s fi rs t l et te r, da te d Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 3, ad vi se d S im s, i nt er al ia , th athe m ig htha ve anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m th athe m ay

rai se in a 3.8 50
m ot io n. Tri al co un se l’s l ette r st at ed : Tha t m ot io n wou ld al le ge , if th e fact s be ar ou t, th at I sh ou ld ha ve sp eci fic al ly ren ewed m

y ob jecti on t o a mi st ria l in th e fir st tri al
. Tha t ren ewal or fil in g of an ob jecti on sh ou ld ha ve be en do ne on ce the co urt in di cat ed on it s own th at it was go in g to de cl are a m is tri al
. I kn ew I ha d to ld th e co urt th at I d i d n o t wan t a m is tri al , b ut th e reco rd refl ect s th at it was do ne be fo re the co urt en te redit s o rd er an d no t aft er. Tha t is su e m ay b e s i g ni fic an t do wn th e ro ad , an d in th at reg ard , y ou wou ld ne ed an ot he r at to rn ey

to ha nd le th atpo rti on of your cas e. The let te r al so st at edth attri al co un se l was “up se t t ha t t he jury di d n otag ree wi th [Si m s’s] ver si onof e ve nt s,” a ndadm it te d t ha t “ as is alwa y s t he cas e whe n the re i s
anun su cces sf

ul tri al ve rd ic t, thi s l awy er reh as he s an d re th in ks an d s eco ndgu es se s qu es ti on s t ha t s ho ul d h av e b een ask ed , ot he rs th atsh ou ldno t h av e b een ask ed ,
8et c.” Tria l co un se l’s s eco ndlet te r, da te d S ep te m be r 18 , 20 07 , was s en t t o t he St at e p ro se cu to r an d e nc lo se d t he fir st , Octo be r 31 , 20 03 let te r. In t he sec on d le tt er, tria l co un se l s ta te d, i nt er al ia , th atth e Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 3 l et te r was an
accu rat e st at em en t o f tr ia l co un se l’s re co ll ect io n o f wha t o ccu rreddu rin g t he fir st tri al an d t ha t t ria l co un se l b el ie ve d h e h ad“ fai le d” Sim s b y st at in g t o t he tri al
co urt t ha t Si m s “ wou ld‘ ab id e’ by th e ru li ng re the m is tri al .” D. Deni al of 3 .85 0 Mo tio n The 3.8 50 co urt d en ie d S im s’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m . At th e o ut se t, th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt c larif

ie d t ha t i t n eedno t d et erm in e whe th er Si m s’s co un se l h ad
co ns en te d t o t he mis tri al be cau se th atqu es ti on was a lre ady de ci de d wh en Fl or id a’s Fi rs t DCA o n d ire ctap pe al affi rm edth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f Si m s’s
m ot io n t o d is m is s. Th eref or e, th e o nl y

is su e b efo re the 3.8 50 co urt was whet he r,
un de r Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) , tri al
co un se l’s co ns en t co ns ti tu te d d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce t ha t p reju di cedSim s. Th e 3.8 50 co urt co nc lu de d tha t Si m s h adno t s ho wn d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e. As t o p erfo rm an ce, the 3.8 50 co urt fo un d t ha t Si m s h adno t ca rri edhi s bu rd ento sh ow t ha t h is tri al co un se l’s “ co ns en t t o am is tri al was d efi ci en t an d n ot
9th e p ro du ctof aso un d t ria l s tra te gy.” The 3 .85 0 c ou rt f ou ndth attri al co un se l’s le tt er was a se co nd -g ue ss in g o f hi m se lf t hr ou gh hi nd si gh t, tha t Si m s h adpre se nt ed
no ev id en ce as to whet he r th e fi rs t t ria l was go in g fa vo rab ly or un fav or ab ly at th at po in t i n t im e an d t ha t Si m s h adno t o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n tha t t ria l co un se l’s act io ns were re as on ab le , as fo ll ows :

Thi s le tt er s erv es on ly to p ro ve th atTrial Co un se l h as reh as he d, r e t h ou gh t, an d se co nd gu es se d hi s de ci si on s st emm in g fro m a n un fav or ab le tri al , w h i c h i s co ns is te nt wit h hi s pr act ic e aft er al l un su cces sf

ul tri al ve rd ic ts . As st at ed by th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, an at to rn ey ’s se co nd g u e s s in g hi m se lf th ro ug h th e be ne fic ia l le ns of hi nd si gh t is of li tt le pe rs ua si on in th os e pr oc eed in gs . Fu rth er, th is Co urt po in ts ou t th at ne it he r pa rty se cu red th e at te nd an ce of Tria l Cou ns el to te st ify at th e ev id en ti ary h eari ng . Acco rd in gl y , t he re was no ev id en ce pr es en te d reg ard in g whe th er th e tri al was pr og res s i n g f a vo rab ly or un fav or ab ly, whe th er th e St at e ha d y et pr ov en or no t y et pr o v e n th e el e men t s of th e cri m e, or whe th er Tria l Co un se l’s ob se rv at io ns of th e jury le d hi m to be li ev e a fav or ab le ve rd ic t was m or e or le ss li ke ly. Wi t ho ut ev id en ce reg ard in g th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces as th ey ex is te d, th is Co urt fin d t h a t th e Defen dant ha s no t ov erco m e th e pr es um pt io n th at Tria l Co un se l’s act io ns were reas on ab le an d effe ct iv e. (Ci ta ti on , qu ot at io n m ark s an d fo ot no te om it te d)
. As t o p reju di ce, the 3.8 50 co urt co nc lu de d tha t Si m s h adno t s ho wn t ha t, ab se nttri al co un se l’s co ns en t t o t he m is tri al , th e St at e was ba rredfro m retry in g hi m . The 3 .85 0 c ou rt n ot edth atth e tr ia l co urt’s co m m en ts , bo th at t he fir sttri al
an d a t the he ari ng be fo re the sec on d t ria l, m ad e cl ear t ha t t he tri al jud ge
co ns id ereda m is tri al m an ife st ly neces sa ry , whet he r orno t Si m s’s co un se l
10co ns en te d, an d tha t Si m s h adno t ca ll edth e tr ia l ju dg e to tes ti fy to th e co nt rary. The 3.8 50 co urt em

ph as iz edth atth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f Si m s’s m ot io n t o di sm is s o n d oubl e jeop ardy gro un ds was ra is edon di rectap pe al an d a ffi rm ed . The Fi rs t DCA af

firm edth e d en ia l o f Si m s’s 3 .85 0 m ot io n. E. Sect io n 2 25 4 Pet iti on InJu ne 20 09 , Sim s fi le d h is pro se § 22 54 pe ti ti on all eg in g t ha t: (1) hi s
se co ndtri al vi ol at edth e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e; an d (2 ) th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r co ns en ti ng to a m is tri al at h is fir sttri al . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Si m s’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on . This Co urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity (“ COA”)
on th e is su e o f “ [w]hethe r Si m s was de ni edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l wh en hi s at to rn ey

fai le d t o o bjec t af

te r th e co urt s uasp on te de cl areda m is tri al .” II . DISCUSSI ON A. In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el To es tabl is h c on st itut io na ll y in effe ct iv e as si st an ce, the de fen da ntm us t s ho w th at(1) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edth e d efen se . Stri ck la nd , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 . To
es tabl is h d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, the pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w hi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was ob

jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le in li gh t o f pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al
no rm s. Id . at 6 87 -8 8, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 -6 5. To sat is fy Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce 11pr on g, the pe ti ti on er “ m us t s ho w th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor
co un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Id . at 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68
. Fu rth erm or e, a fed eral co urt m ay no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f on in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce cl ai m s t ha t wer e p rev io us ly deci de d i n s ta te co urt, unl es s t he st at e co urt de ci 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
es tabl is he d F ed 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 a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts in li 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) . Sect io n 22 54 (d ) “ im

po se s a h ig hl y

de fere nt ia l s tand ardforev al ua ti ng st at e-co urt ru li ng s . . . .” Hardy v. Cro ss , 56 5 U.S. — , 13 2 S . Ct. 4 90 , 49 1 (2 01 1) (qu ot in g F el kn er v . Ja ck so n, 5 62 U.S. —, 13 1 S . Ct. 1 30 5, 1 30 7 (2 01 1) ). 2 Ourst an da rdof r ev ie w is “ do ub ly defer en ti al ” whe n “ a Stric kl an d c la im [is ]
ev al ua te d u nd er the § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) st an da rd .” Kno wles v. Mi rzayance , 55 6 U.S. 11 1, 1 23 , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 41 1, 1 42 0 (2 00 9) . “ The qu es ti on is no t wh ethe r a fed eral
co urt b el ie ve s t he st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n u nd er the Str ic kl an d s ta nd ardwas

We reviewde novo the district cour t’s deter mination whether the state cour t acted 2 contra ry to, or unrea sonable a

pplied, clea

rly established fe dera l law or made an unre asonable deter mination of the fac ts. Reed v. Sec’ y , Fla. D ep’t of Corr s., 593 F.3d 1217, 1239 (11th Cir.), cer t. denied, 131 S. Ct. 177 (2010). 12in co rrec t b utwhet he r th atde te rm in at io n was un reas on ab le – a s ub st an ti al ly hig he r

th res ho ld .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. B. Si m s’ s Cl ai m Si m s h as no t s ho wn t ha t t he 3.8 50 co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s i ne ffec ti ve
as si st an ce o f tr ia l co un se l cl ai m was c on trary

to , or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, Stric kl an d o r ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts . Sim s cl ai m s th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r co ns en ti ng , rathe r th anob jecti ng , to th e di st ric t co urt’s s uasp on te de cl arat io n o f a m is tri al in th e fi rs t t ria l. Si m s’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m res ts on th e as su m

pt io n t ha t i f hi s t ria l co un se l h ad ob jecte d t o t he m is tri al , th e st at e tr ia l co urt n eces sa ril y wou ldhave st il l g ran te d a
m is tri al , andSim s the n wo ul d h av e p rev ai le d o n h is subs eque ntm ot io n t o d is m is s
on do ub le jeop ardy

gro un ds . For s ev eral reas on s, we ca nn otsay the 3.8 50 co urt
un reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atSim s h adno t s ho wn d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e. Fi rs t, the re i s n o s ho win g tha t i f de fen se co un se l h adob jecte d, t he st at e tr ia l
co urt wo ul d h av e st il l d ecl areda m is tri al to ev encrea te a do ub le jeop ardy is su e. Seco nd , eve n i f th e st at e tr ia l co urt s ti ll wou ldha ve de cl areda m is tri al , th e st at e tr ia l co urt ca n p ro pe rly do so ev enov er a d efen da nt ’s ob jecti on . In t he cas e of a m is tri al , th e d oubl e jeop ardy ba r to a se co ndtri al can be li fte d e ithe r by the
13de fen da nt ’s con se ntto th e m is tri al or b y th e tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in g, o ve r th e de fen da nt ’s ob

jecti on , th atth e m is tri al is a “ m an ife stne ces si ty.” O reg on v. Ken ne dy, 456 U.S. 66 7, 6 71 -7 2, 1 02 S. Ct. 2 08 3, 2 08 7- 88 (19 82 ). Whe n t he de fen da ntdo es no t co ns en t, tria l ju dg es st il l h av e b ro addi sc ret io n t o s uasp on te de cl are amis tri al “ ‘whe ne ve r, in th ei r op in io n, t ak in g a ll th e ci rcu m st an ces in to
co ns id erat io n, t he re i s a m an ife stne ces si ty for d oi ng so .’ ” See R en ic o v . Lett , __

_ U.S. __ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 85 5, 1 86 3 (2 01 0) (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Perez , 22 U.S. (9 Whe at .) 57 9, 5 80 (18 24 )). The tri al co urt n eedno t m ak e an ex pl ic itfin di ng of
m an ife stne ces si ty or art ic ul at e o n t he reco rdth e fac to rs th atledto th at
co nc lu si on . Id. at18 63 -6 4. “ A tri al jud ge pro pe rly exer ci se s h is di sc ret io n t o de cl are amis tri al if an i m pa rti al ve rd ic t ca nn otbe reac he d, o r if a ve rd ic t o f
co nv ic ti on co ul d b e rea ch edbu t wo ul d h av e to be rev ers edon ap pe al du e to an ob vi ou s p ro cedur al erro r in th e tr ia l.” Il li no is v. So m erv il le , 41 0 U.S. 4 58 , 46 4, 9 3 S. Ct . 10 66 , 10 70 (19 73 ). 3 Thi rd , inan y

ev en t, Si m s d idno t s ub m itany ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t n o
reas on ab le att orne y

in hi s t ria l co un se l’s s ho es wou ldha ve co ns en te d (o r fai le d t o

To the extent Si ms argues on appe al that the 3.850 cour t unrea sonably

applied the 3 manifest nec essity

doctrine in a

naly zing whethe r the trial c ourt’s denia l of his motion t o dismiss violated his double jeopar dy rights, this questi on is not withi n the scope of the COA. Thus, we addre ss only

trial counsel’ s failure to object to the district court’s sua sponte dec laration of a mistrial after a

findingof manife st nece ssity
. 14ob

ject) to th e tr ia l co urt’s s uasp on te m is tri al , esp eci al ly giv enth e stro ng ev id en ce ag ai ns t Si m s atth atpo in t i n t im e. Trial co un se l’s co rres po nd en ce s ay s n othi ng ab ou t the pro gr es s o f th e tr ia l atth atpo in t i n t im e o r co un se l’s d eci si on m ak in g o r
co un se l’s re as on s fo r ab id in g b y th e tr ia l co urt’s ru li ng . The l et te rs do no t ev en ad m itth attri al co un se l co ns en te d t o t he m is tri al or d idso erro ne ou sl y . Con tra ry to Sim s’s cl ai m , th e le tt ers do no t s ho w tri al co un se l’s i gn or an ce o f th e le ga l st an da rd s ap pl ic ab le to do ub le jeop ardy an d m is tri al s. As th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt
ex pl ai ne d, t he se let te rs am ou nton ly to t ria l co un se l’s “ reh as hi ng ” wit h t he be ne fit of hi nd si gh t an d d o n otpro ve th attri al co un se l’s co ns en t (o r fai lu re t o o bjec t) t o th e tr ia l co urt’s s uasp on te de cl arat io n o f a m is tri al was o bjec ti ve ly unp ro fes si on al atth e p oi ntin ti m e itoc cu rred
. Mo reo ve r, we kn ow fr om th e rec or d o f th e fi rs t t ria l t ha t t he Sta te ha d al read y pre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m All en , W el chan d Tro op er Gi ll at t ha t po in t i n t im e to co nv ic t Si m s. Th e jury alrea dy hadhe ardth atSim s’s tru ck was st op pe d i n t he m id dl e o f th e ro ad , th atth e v ic ti m saw s om eo ne sl um

pe d o ve r th e st eeri ng whee l, tha t Si m s was pre se ntat t he sce ne an d app eare d i m pa ire d, t ha t Si m s ad m it te d h e h adbe endri vi ng an d t ha t Si m s’s b lo od -al co ho l l ev el st il l was ab ov e th e le ga l l im itov er fo ur ho ur s af te r th e cra sh . The tria l, i f an yth in g, was no t go in g fa vo rab ly for Si m s. 15Und er the se cir cu m st an ces , Sim s s im pl y di d n otpre se ntan y

ev id en ce t o pr ov id e th e k in d o f co nt ex t t ha t m ig htreb utth e p res um pt io n o f rea so nabl en es s. As s uc h, we ca nn otsay the 3.8 50 co urt u nr eas on ab ly con cl ud edth atSim s d idno t
ov erco m e th e “ st ro ng pre su m pt io n” th attri al co un se l’s co nduc t fe ll withi n t he wid e ran ge of r eas on ab le pro fes si on al ass is ta nc e an d, t he refo re, tha t Si m s’ di d n ot
carry hi s b ur de n t o s ho w def

ic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. As t o p reju di ce, the reco rd , if an yth in g, s ho ws t ha t t he tri al co urt d ecl ared th e m is tri al su a sp on te pri m ari ly bas edon m an ife stne ces si ty due to th e h os pi ta l
reco rd s, an d n otne ces saril y ba se d o n S im s’s co ns en t. As t he tri al co urt ex pl ai ne d whe n i t d en ie d S im s’s m ot io n t o d is m is s, t he tri al co urt’s d eci si on to de cl are a
m is tri al was b as edon th e “ to ta li ty of th e si tu at io n” an d b ecau se jus ti ce re qu ire d a
m is tri al to all ow t he pa rti es to ob ta in “ di sc ov ery an d d eal with i t an d t he n c om e ba ckan d t ry

th e cas e.” Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt d idno t ac t co nt rary to, o r
un reas on ab ly app ly, Stric kl an d i n re jecti ng Sim s’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f tr ia l
co un se l cl ai m . AFFIRMED.

16