FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 23, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 15755

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 1 8 7 2 - CV - EA K - M SS M E L V I N T R O T T E R , 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 , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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

_________________________ ( J ul y 23, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

M e l vi n T r ott e rappe a l s the de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus and argues thattw o st atut es enac t ed af t erhe com m i tt ed a c api t al offe nse butbefore he w a s r e s e nt e nc e d t o de a th vi ol a t e the E x P os tF a c t o C l a us e of A r t i c l e I , S e c t i on 1 0 , o f th e U n it ed S tates C o n stitu ti o n . D u rin g th e s en ten cin g p h as e o f T ro tt er ’s ori gi nal tri al , the courtand j ury f ou nd as on e of s ever al aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s tha tT r ott e rw a s s e rvi ng a“ s e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e nt ” be c a us e he w a s s e rvi ng a s e nt e nc e of

c om m uni ty c ontr ol w he n he c om m i tt e d the m ur de r . O n appe a l , the S upr e m e C our tof

F l or i dahe l d tha tc om m uni ty c ontr ol i s not“ i m pr i s onm e nt ” a nd r e m a nde d f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. B e f

or e T r ott e rw a s r e s e nt e nc e d, the F l or i da L e gi s l a tur e a m e nde d the s t a tut e of a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s t o i nc l ude s e rvi ng a s e nt e nc e of

c om m uni ty c ontr ol . F l or i daa l s o e na c t e d as t a tut e tha tpe rm i tt e d the in tro d u ctio n o f v icti m -im p ac t ev id en ce at se n ten cin g . T h e ju ry at T ro tt er ’s r e s e n te n c in g h e a r d e v id e n c e u n d e rb o th o f th e s e n e w s ta tu te s , a n d th e c o u r t a g a in i m po se d a se nt ence of death. O n app ea l of hi s s ec on d sent ence , the S up re m e C ou rt of F l or i daove rrul e d i t s e a r l i e rde c i s i on tha tc om m uni ty c ontr ol i s not

“ i m pr i s onm e nt , ” c onc l ude d tha tT r ott e r ’ s or i gi na l tr i a l ha d be e n e rr or - f r e e , a nd rej ect ed T ro tt er’ s arg u m en tab o u tth e E x P o stF act o C l au se. T h e co u rtal so r e j e c t e d T r ott e r ’ s c ha l l e nge of the vi c t i m - i m pa c te vi de nc e . B e c a us e tha tde c i s i on d id n o t u n r e a s o n ab ly ap p ly c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f e d e r a l la w , w e a f

f irm .3 I . B AC KG RO UN D O n J une 16, 1986, M e l vi n T r ott e re nt e r e d agr oc e ry s t or e i n P a l m e tt o, F l or i da , ow ne d by s e ve nty - y e a r - ol d V i r gi e L a ngf or d, gr abbe d M s . L a ngf or d by the neck, and st abbed h erse ven t i m es w i th a si xt ee n-i nch-l on g b ut cherkn i fe that T rott erhad o bt ai ned ather s t ore. A l tho ug h T rott erhad cuther e i gh t -i nches deep a nd di s e m bow e l e d he r , M s . L a ngf or d r e m a i ne d a l i ve w hi l e T r ott e rr obbe d he rof m on eyand foo d st am ps. M s. L angford d i ed l at erata hospi t al af t era c ust om er di s c ove r e d he rw hi l e s he l a y bl e e di ng on the f l oorof he rs t or e . T r ott e rus e d the m o n e y th a t h e s to le f

r o m M s . L a n g f

o r d to p u r c h a s e c r a c k c o c a in e . A f t e ratr i a l , aj ury f

ound T r ott e rgui l ty of

r obbe ry w i th ade a dl y w e apon a nd f ir s t- d e g r e e m u r d e ra n d r e c o m m e n d e d as e n te n c e o f d e a th b y an in e - to - th r e e v o te . A F l ori da st atut e c on t ai ned an exh aust i ve l i stof aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s, F l a. S t at . § 9 21 . 14 1(5) (198 5), and the tri al courtfoun d fou r of them appl i ed t o T rott er : ( 1) “ [ t ] he c r i m e w a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e unde rs e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e nt ” ; ( 2) “ the de f e nda ntha d pr e vi ous l y be e n c onvi c t e d of af e l ony i nvol vi ng us e orthr e a tof vi ol ence ”; (3) “ the cr i m e w as com m i tt ed w hi l e e ng aged i n the com m i ss i on of a robb ery” ; and (4) “ the cr i m e w as es peci al l y w i cked, evi l , atroci ou s, and cruel . ” T rott erv. S t at e, 57 6 S o. 2d 69 1, 69 2 & n. 2 (F l a. 19 90 ) ( “ T rott erI” ). T he tri al court a l s o f ound f ourm i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s : ( 1) the “ [ d] e f e nda ntw a s unde rthe4

i nf l ue nc e of e xtr e m e m e nt a l a nd e m ot i ona l di s turba nc e ” ; ( 2) “ the c apa c i ty of the d e f e n d a n twa s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d ” ; ( 3 ) “ th e d e f e n d a n th a s ab e l o w a v e r a g e I . Q. and a hi st ory of f

am i l y a nd devel op m ent al prob l em s” ; and (4) “ re m orse . ” I d. at 69 2 & n. 3. T he tri al courtfoun d thatthe aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s outw ei gh ed th e m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d s e n te n c e d T r o tte rto d e a th . I d . a t 6 9 2 . T he tr i a l c our tf

ound tha tT r ott e rw a s a“ pe r s on unde rs e nt e nc e of i m pri sonm ent , ” F l a. S t at . § 9 21 . 14 1(5)(a ) ( 19 85 ), because, w hen the m urder oc c urr e d, T r ott e rw a s s e rvi ng as e nt e nc e of “ c om m uni ty c ontr ol ” f orapr i or c onvi c t i on of

r obbe ry a nd bur gl a ry . S e e T r ott e rv. S t a t e , 932 S o. 2d 1045, 1053 (F l a. 20 06 ) ( “ T rott erII I” ). C om m un i ty c on trol i s “ a f orm of i nt ensi ve, supervi se d cust od y i n the com m un i ty, . . . i n w hi ch the fr ee do m of an offender i s r es tri ct ed w ith in th e c o m m u n ity , h o m e , o rn o n in s titu tio n a l r e s id e n tia l p la c e m e n t a n d s p e c if ic s a nc t i ons a r e i m pos e d a nd e nf or c e d. ” F l a . S t a t . § 948. 001. T he S upr e m e C our tof F l ori da has c hara ct er i ze d com m un i ty c on trol as “ a har sh and m ore s ever e al t ernat i ve t o o rdi naryprob at i on . ” S t at e v. M es t as , 50 7 S o. 2d 58 7, 58 8 (F l a. 19 87 ) ( B arkett , J. ). T rott ersucc es sf ul l y a rgued o n app ea l thatthe tri al courterre d b y in te rp r e tin g “im p r is o n m e n t” to in c lu d e as e n te n c e o f c o m m u n ity c o n tr o l. T r o tte rI , 5 7 6 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 4 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f F lo r id a“h e ld th a t c o m m u n ity c ontr ol w a s nota n a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e a uthor i z e d by s t a tut e . ” T r ott e rv.5

S t a t e , 690 S o. 2d 1234, 1236 ( F l a . 1996) ( “ T r ott e rI I ” ) . T he c our t“ r e m a nde d f or r e s e n te n c in g b e f

o r e aju ry .” I d . T he deci si on of the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da w as controvers i al . Just i ce M c D o n a ld , jo in e d b y J u s tic e G r im e s , d is s e n te d in p a r t b e c a u s e th e y “b e lie v e [ d ] it ent i re l y app ropri at e f

or the tri al j ud ge t o fi nd as an aggravat i ng fa ct or thatT rott er w as un der s ent ence of i m pri sonm entw hen h e c om m i tt ed thi s c ri m e. ” T rott erI, 5 7 6 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 5 ( M c D o n a ld , J ., c o n c u rr in g in p a r t a n d d is s e n tin g in p a r t) (f oo tno t e om i tt ed). T he di ss entexpl ai ned that“ [c ] om m un i ty c on trol i s ahars her se nt ence than p robat i on ” a nd that , un der F l ori da l aw , com m un i ty c on trol i s aform o f “su p er v ised cu sto d y.” I d . at 6 9 5 . T h e d isse n t also ex p lain ed th at T ro tt er ’s coun se l had adm i tt ed before the tri al courtthatthe st at e had prov ed thatT rott er w as i ncar ce ra t ed w hen the m urder occurr ed and d i d n otobj ec tt o the j ury in s tru c tio n o n s e rv ic e o f as e n te n c e o f

im p r is o n m e n t. I d . a t 6 9 5 & n .1 1 . A ft erthe S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da re m anded T rott er ’ s c as e butbefore T r o tte rw a s r e s e n te n c e d , th e le g is la tu r e e n a c te d tw o s ta tu te s . T h e f ir s t s ta tu te a m e n d e d th e lis t o f

a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T h e a m e n d m e n t p r o v id e d th a t it is a n a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e tha t“ [ t ] he c api t a l f e l ony w a s c om m i tt e d by ape r s on u n d e rs e n te n c e o f

im p r is o n m e n t o rp la c e d o n c o m m u n ity c o n tr o l.” F la . S ta t. § 921. 141( 5) ( a ) ( 1991) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; s e e T r ott e rI I , 690 S o. 2d a t1237. T he6

s e c ond s t a tut e pr ovi de d tha t , a f t e ri ntr oduc i ng e vi de nc e of a n a ggr a va t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e , “th e p r o s e c u tio n m a y in tr o d u c e , a n d s u b s e q u e n tly a r g u e , v ic tim im p a c t e v id e n c e .” F la . S ta t. § 9 2 1 .1 4 1 ( 7 ) . A t T r o tte r ’s r e s e n te n c in g , a n a d v is o ry ju ry r e c o m m e n d e d as e n te n c e o f d e a th by avot e of

e l e ve n t o one . T he s t a t e i ntr oduc e d t e s t i m ony f r om m e m be r s of

the vi c t i m ’ s f

a m i l y aboutthe vi c t i m ’ s s urvi vor s , the vi c t i m ’ s pe r s ona l qua l i t i e s , a nd the l e ve l of

r e s pe c ttha tthe vi c t i m e nj oy e d i n the c om m uni ty . D ur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt , the pr os e c ut orde s c r i be d the vi c t i m a s aw a rm a nd l ovi ng pe r s on.

“ [ T ] he tr i a l c our tf

ol l ow e d the j ury ’ s e l e ve n- t o- one vot e a nd a ga i n i m pos e d the death p enal ty a ft erfi nd i ng four aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s, tw o st atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s, and sever al no nst atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s. ” T r ott e rI I , 690 S o. 2d a t1236 ( f ootnot e s om i tt e d) . A s one a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e , the tr i a l c our tf ound tha t“ T r ott e rw a s on c om m uni ty c ontr ol a tthe t i m e of the m ur de r s . ” I d. a t1236 n. 5. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f

F lo r id ar e

je c te d T r o tte r ’s tw o a r g u m e n ts th a t h is se cond se nt ence of death v i ol at ed the E x P ostF ac t o C l ause . Id. at12 37 . T rott er ar gu ed thatF l ori da vi ol at ed the E x P ostF ac t o C l ause “ because hi s c ri m e a nd i ni t i al se nt enci ng t oo k p l ac e bef ore the [a m endm enti ncl ud i ng com m un i ty c on trol as an a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e ] w a s e na c t e d. ” I d. T he S upr e m e C our tof F l or i das t a t e d,7

“ W e di sa gree and fi nd no vi ol at i on , j ustas w e have found no vi ol at i on i n every othe rc a s e w he r e a n a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e w a s appl i e d r e tr oa c t i ve l y— e ve n on re se nt enci ng . ” I d. “ U se of com m un i ty c on trol as an aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance ” a c c o r d in g to th e c o u r t, “c o n s titu te s ar e f in e m e n t in th e ‘s e n te n c e o f im p r is o n m e n t’ fact o r, n o ta su b st an t i v e ch an g e i n F l o ri d a’ s d eath p en al ty l aw . ” Id . T ro tt er al so a r gue d tha tthe us e of

hi s s e rvi c e on c om m uni ty c ontr ol a s a n a ggr a va t i ng ci rc um st ance vi ol at ed “ the ‘ l aw of the ca se ’ do ctri ne because [the S up re m e C ou rt of F l or i daha d] a l r e a dy de c i de d [ tha t ] i s s ue i n hi s f a vor , ” butthe S upr e m e C our tof F l or i dadi s a gr e e d. I d. T he c our te xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ a ] n i nt e rve ni ng a c tof the le g is la tu r e r e f

in in g ap o r tio n o f

F lo r id a ’s d e a th p e n a lty s ta tu te m a y b e s u f f ic ie n tly exce pt i on al t o w arra ntm od i fi ca t i on of the l aw of the ca se . ” I d. T he courtthen d e c la r e d , “W e r e c e d e f

r o m o u rru lin g in [ T r o tte rI ] o n th e u s e o f c o m m u n ity control as an aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance and n ot e thatthi s r enders T rott er ’ s ori gi nal tri al error- fr ee . ” I d. T he pers pect i ve of the di ss ent er s i n T rott er ’ s ori gi nal appeal fin ally p re v ailed . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f F lo rid a a lso su m m ar il y r ejec ted T ro tt er ’s a r gum e ntaboutthe us e of vi c t i m - i m pa c te vi de nc e a s “ w i thoutm e r i t . ” I d. T he courtaf fi rm ed T rott er ’ s dea th sent ence . Id. T he S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t a t e s l a t e rde ni e d T r ott e r ’ s pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

c e r t i or a r i . T r ott e rv. F l or i da , 522 U .S . 8 7 6 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 1 9 7 ( 1 9 9 7 ) .8

T rott erm ov ed for post conv i ct i on re l i ef un der F l ori da R ul e of C ri m i nal P r oc e dur e 3. 850. T r ott e rI I I , 932 S o. 2d 1047. H e r a i s e d s e ve r a l c ha l l e nge s t o the e f f e c t i ve ne s s of

hi s c ouns e l , the m e thod of e xe c ut i on, a nd the j ury i ns truc t i ons g iv en at th e s en ten cin g h ea rin g . Id . at 1 0 4 8 n .4 . T h e trial co u rt d en ied T ro tt er ’s m o tio n , a n d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f F lo r id aa f

f irm e d . T rott erfi l ed a pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus i n the fe dera l di stri ct court . H e a rgued thatbo th the use of hi s s ervi ce on com m un i ty c on trol as an a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e a nd the a dm i s s i on of vi c t i m - i m pa c te vi de nc e vi ol a t e d the Ex Po s tFa c t o Cl a u s e . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tFl o r i d av i o l a t e d th e Ex P ostF ac t o C l ause bu tthe vi ol at i on s w er e harm l es s bec ause the se nt enci ng court e x p r e s s l y d i s c l a i me d r e l i a n c e o n Tr o tt e r ’ s c o mmu n i ty - c o n tr o l s t a tu s a n d v i c t i mi m pa c te vi de nc e w he n i ti m pos e d the s e nt e nc e . W e gr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of ap p e a lab ility ab o u t th e s e is s u e s . I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w de novo the de ni a l of ape t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus by the di s tr i c tc our t . S i m s v. S i ngl e t a ry , 155 F . 3d 1297, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t i ng B y r d v. H a s ty , 142 F . 3d 1395, 1396 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ) . T he A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 gove rns T r ott e r ’ s pe t i t i on a nd “ l i m i t s our r e vi e w of

the de c i s i ons of

the s t a t e c our t s a nd e s t abl i s he s a‘ ge ne r a l f r a m e w ork of9

s ubs t a nt i a l de f

e r e nc e ’ f orr e vi e w i ng ‘ e ve ry i s s ue tha tthe s t a t e c our t s ha ve de c i de d. ’ ” C r ow e v. H a l l , 490 F . 3d 840, 844 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng D i a z v. S e c ’y f o rth e D e p ’t o f

C o rr ., 4 0 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . W e w ill af fi rm the deci si on of the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da un l es s thatdeci si on “ w as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1), or there w as an

“ un re as on abl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s, ” i d. § 2 25 4(d)(2).

“ T he ‘ c ontr a ry t o’ a nd ‘ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on’ c l a us e s of § 2254( d) ( 1) a r e s e pa r a t e ba s e s f

orr e vi e w i ng as t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i ons . ” P utm a n v. H e a d, 268 F . 3d 1223, 1241 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U . S . 362, 404–05, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1519 ( 2000) ) . “ A s t a t e c our tde c i s i on i s ‘ c ontr a ry t o’ cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw i f e i ther ( 1) the st at e c ou rtappl i ed a rul e that contra di ct s the go verni ng l aw se tforth b y S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw , or (2) w hen 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 f f e r e ntf r om tha tr e a c he d i n aS upr e m e C our tc a s e . ” I d. ( c i t i ng B ott os on v. M o o r e , 2 3 4 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . T h e d e c is io n o f th e F lo r id ac o u r t is an “ un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on ” of f eder al l aw i f the st at e c ou rtappl i ed the corre ct le g a l ru le f

r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in a n “o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le ” m a n n e r . W oo dford v . V i sc i ot t i , 53 7 U . S . 19 , 25 , 12 3 S . C t . 35 7, 36 0 (20 02 ).10 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A r tic le I , S e c tio n 1 0 , o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n s ta te s , “N o S ta te s h a ll

. . . pa s s a ny . . . e x pos tf a c t o l a w . . . . ” I n one of the e a r l i e s tof

not abl e de c i s i ons o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, C a ld e rv . B u ll, J u s tic e C h a s e r e c o g n iz e d th a t th is

“ pr ohi bi t i on . . . ne c e s s a r i l y r e qui r e s s om e e xpl a na t i on; f or , na ke d a nd w i thout ex p l an at i o n , i ti s u n i n t el l i g i b l e, ” an d “ st at e[d ] w h atl aw s [h e] co n si d er[ed ] ex p o st f a c to la w s , w ith in th e w o r d s a n d th e in te n t o f th e p r o h ib itio n ” : 1s t . E ve ry l a w tha tm a ke s a n a c t i on, done be f or e the pa s s i ng of

the l aw , and w hi ch w as i nn ocentw hen d on e, cr i m i nal ; and p un i shes such ac t i on . 2n d. E veryl aw thataggravat es a c ri m e, or m akes i tgrea t er tha n i tw a s , w he n c om m i tt e d. 3r d. E ve ry l a w tha tc ha nge s the p u n is h m e n t, a n d in f

lic ts ag r e a te rp u n is h m e n t, th a n th e la w a n n e x e d to the cr i m e, w hen com m i tt ed. 4th. E veryl aw thatal t er s the l egal rul es of evi dence, and rece i ves l es s, or di ff er ent , t es t i m on y, than the l aw r e q u ir e d a t th e tim e o f

th e c o m m is s io n o f

th e o f f e n c e , in o r d e rto c o n v ic t th e o f

f e n d e r . 3 U . S . (3 D al l . ) 386 , 39 0 (17 98 ) ( C hase , J. ). “ E ar l y opi ni on s of the [U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e] C ou rtpo rtra ye d thi s a s a n excl usi ve defi ni t i on of ex po stfa ct o l aw s, ” C ol l i ns v. Y oungbl ood, 497 U . S . 37, 42, 110 S . C t . 2715, 2719 ( 1990) , a nd d ec isio n s o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt in re ce n t yea rs h av e c o n firm ed th at Ju stice C h as e’s de f i ni t i on i n C a l de rr e m a i ns e xha us t i ve , C a rm e l l v. T e xa s , 529 U . S . 513, 539, 120 S . C t. 1 6 2 0 , 1 6 3 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; C o llin s , 4 9 7 U .S . a t 4 5

– 4 6 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 2 7 2 1 . T r o tte ra r g u e s th a t h e is e n title d to aw r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s b e c a u s e h is d e a th11

s e n te n c e w a s th e c o n s e q u e n c e o f tw o e x p o s t f

a c to la w s . H e a r g u e s th a t th e s ta tu te tha ta dde d l a ngua ge t o the l i s tof a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s aboutc om m uni ty c ontr ol aggravat ed hi s c ri m e a nd i nfl i ct ed a grea t erpu ni shm entthan the l aw prov i ded w hen h e c om m i tt ed hi s c ri m e. T rott eral so ar gu es thatthe st atut e thatperm i tt ed the i ntr oduc t i on of

vi c t i m - i m pa c te vi de nc e c ons t i tut e d the ki nd of a l t e r a t i on i n the ru le s o f e v id e n c e th a t v io la te s th e E x P o s t F a c to C la u s e . B o th o f th e s e a r g u m e n ts f a il. W e a d d r e s s e a c h a r g u m e n t in tu rn .

A . T h e A m en dm en t

to th e S ta tu te o

f A g g ra va t i n gFa cto rs D id N o t A ffe c t T r o tte r ’s P u n is h m e n t. T ro tt er arg u es th atth e am en d m en tb y th e l eg i sl atu re th atad d ed co m m u n i tyc ontr ol s t a tus t o the e xha us t i ve s t a tut e of a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s tha tas e nt e nc i ng courtand j ury m ustw ei gh before i m po si ng a s ent ence of death m akes “ m ore bur de ns om e the puni s hm e ntf orac r i m e , ” B e a z e l l v. O hi o, 269 U . S . 167, 169, 46 S . C t. 6 8 , 6 8 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ; C o llin s , 4 9 7 U .S . a t 5 2 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 2 7 2 4 , b u t w e d is a g r e e . A l though the di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tT r ott e rw a s s ubj e c tt o a n e x pos tf a c t o l a w a nd the error w as harm l es s, w e “ m ayaf fi rm on any groun d sup po rt ed by the re cord. ” W e ld in g S e rv s ., I n c . v . F o rm a n , 5 0 9 F .3 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e c o n c lu d e th a t T r o tte rw a s n o t s u b je c t to a n e x p o s t f

a c to la w . T he a m e ndm e ntby the l e gi s l a tur e tha te xpr e s s l yi nc l ude d as e nt e nc e of c om m uni ty c ontr ol a s a n a ggr a va t i ng f a c t ordi d nota f

f e c tT r ott e r ’ s puni s hm e nt12

be c a us e , a f

t e rtha ts t a tut e w a s pa s s e d, the S upr e m e C our tof F l or i da“ r e c e de [ d] f r o m [ its ] ru lin g ” in T r o tte r ’s o r ig in a l ap p e a l th a t a“s e n te n c e o f im p r is o n m e n t” u n d e rth e s ta tu te o f

a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s d o e s n o t in c lu d e as e n te n c e o f c o m m u n ity c ontr ol . T r ott e rI I , 690 S o. 2d a t1236–37. B a s e d on tha tde c i s i on, the s t a tut e of aggravat i ng fa ct ors i ncl ud ed se rvi ce on com m un i ty c on trol w hen T rott er com m i tt ed hi s c ri m e. T he courtexpl ai ned thati t s dec i si on t o o verrul e i t s e ar l i er de c i s i on r e nde r e d “ T r ott e r ’ s or i gi na l tr i a l e rr or - f r e e . ” I d. a t1237. T h e S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n i t ed S t at es h as ex p l ai n ed th at“ [e] v ery ex p o st fact o l aw m u stn ecessaril y b e retro sp ect i v e. ” C al d er, 3 U . S . (3 D al l . ) at3 9 1 (C h ase J. ); ac cord M i l l erv. F l ori da, 48 2 U . S . 42 3, 43 0, 10 7 S . C t . 24 46 , 24 51 (198 7); W e a v e rv . G r a h a m , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 4 , 3 0 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 9 6 0 , 9 6 4 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A n e x p o s t f a c to l aw “ changes the l egal consequences of a ct s c om pl et ed before i t s e ff ec t i ve dat e. ” W e a v e r , 4 5 0 U .S . a t 3 1 , 1 0 1 S . C t. a t 9 6 5 . B e c a u s e as e n te n c e o f c o m m u n ity control w as a “ se nt ence of i m pri sonm ent ” und erthe st atut e of a gg ra vat i ng fa ct ors atthe t i m e of T rott er ’ s c ri m e, T rott erII , 69 0 S o. 2d at12 37 , the am endm entthat a dde d t o tha ts t a tut e a n e xpr e s s r e f e r e nc e t o c om m uni ty c ontr ol di d notc ha nge the m e a n in g o f

th e s ta tu te o rth e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f T r o tte r ’s a c ts .

“ T he E x P os tF a c t o C l a us e i s al i m i t a t i on upon the pow e r s of the L e gi s l a tur e , a nd doe s notof i t s ow n f

or c e appl y t o the J udi c i a l B r a nc h of13

gove rnm e nt . ” M a rks v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 430 U . S . 188, 191, 97 S . C t . 990, 992 ( 1977) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( c i t i ng C a l de r , 3 U . S . ( 3 D a l l . ) a t388 ( C ha s e , J . ) ; F r a nk v . M a g n u m , 2 3 7 U .S . 3 0 9 , 3 4 4 , 3 5 S . C t. 5 8 2 , 5 9 3 ( 1 9 1 5 ) ) . A t o r a l a r g u m e n t, T r ott e rque s t i one d the w i s dom of the c ha nge of

pos i t i on by the S upr e m e C our tof F l or i da , buti ti s notourpl a c e t o s e c ond- gue s s the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the l a w of F lo rid a b y its h ig h es t co u rt. T h e q u es ti o n b ef o re u s is w h eth erth e u se o f T ro tt er ’s serv i ce o n co m m u n i ty co n tro l as an ag g rav at i n g ci rcu m st an ce v i o l at ed th e E x P o st F a c t o C l a us e of

A r t i c l e I , S e c t i on 10, of the C ons t i tut i on. I n the l i ghtof the s e c ond deci si on by the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da, w hi ch re nd er ed T rott er ’ s “ ori gi nal tri al e rr o r - f r e e ,” T r o tte rI I , 6 9 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 3 7 , th e a m e n d e d s ta tu te ab o u t c o m m u n ity c ontr ol di d notc ha nge the l e ga l c ons e que nc e s of T r ott e r ’ s c r i m e . T he de c i s i on of the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da abou tthe use of c om m un i ty c on trol as an a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e w a s n o t 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 tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . B . T rot t er I s N ot En t i t l ed to a W

ri tof H ab eas C orpu s B as ed on the U

s e of V i ct i m - I m pact E vi dence . T r o tte ra r g u e s th a t th e a d m is s io n o f v ic tim - im p a c t e v id e n c e u n d e ras ta tu te thatw as pass ed af

t erhe com m i tt ed hi s c ri m e e nt i t l es hi m t o a w ri tof habeas co rp u s, b u tw e d i sag ree. T h e o p i n i o n o f Ju st i ce C h ase i n C al d er d escri b es a c a t e gory of

e x pos tf a c t o l a w s tha ti nvol ve s a l t e r a t i ons t o the “ l e ga l rul e s of14

e v i d e n c e , ” 3 U . S. ( 3 D a l l . ) a t3 9 0 ( Ch a s e , J . ) , b u tth r e e y e a r s b e f o r e th e Su p r e me C our tof F l or i daa f

f i rm e d T r ott e r ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e the S upr e m e C our tof th e U n ite d S ta te s e x p la in e d th a t th e E x P o s t F a c to C la u s e “w a s n o t in te n d e d to proh i bi tthe appl i ca t i on of new evi dent i ary rul es i n tri al s f or cr i m es com m i tt ed before the changes, ” C ol l i ns, 49 7 U . S . at42 n. 3, 11 0 S . C t . at27 19 n. 3. T hat s t a t e m e nti n C ol l i ns r e a f f i rm e d l ongs t a ndi ng pr e c e de nttha tc ontr ol s ourr e s ol ut i on of thi s i s s ue . I n T hom ps on v. M i s s our i , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe r e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of al a w pe rm i tt i ng the i ntr oduc t i on of e xpe r tt e s t i m ony on h a n d wr i t i n g th a th a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n i n a d mi s s i b l e wa s n o tav i o l a t i o n o f th e Ex P os tF a c t o C l a us e . 171 U . S . 380, 388, 18 S . C t . 922, 925 ( 1898) . I n the l i ghtof th at d ec isio n , th e d ec isio n b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f F lo rid a r ejec ti n g T ro tt er ’s c ha l l e nge t o the r e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of al a w pe rm i tt i ng the i ntr oduc t i on of vi c t i m - i m pa c tt e s t i m ony w a s notc ontr a ry t o ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). T rott erar gu es thata dec i si on i ss ued b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t a t e s f oury e a r s a f

t e rthe S upr e m e C our tof F l or i daa f

f i rm e d hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e n t e n c e e n t i t l e s h i m t o th e w r i tth a th e r e q u e s t s . I n Ca rme l l v . Te x a s , th e Su p r e me C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s h e ld th a t ru le s o f e v id e n c e c a n b e e x p o s t f a c to la w s if15

th e y “r e d u c e th e q u a n tu m o f e v id e n c e ” n e c e s s a ry f

o rth e g o v e rn m e n t to m e e t its bu rden of proo f. 52 9 U . S . 51 3, 54 1, 12 0 S . C t . 16 20 , 16 37 (200 0). Th e Su p r e me Co u r ta d d r e s s e d a n a l t e r a t i o n t o as t a tu t e th a tr e q u i r e d th a tth e t e s t i mo n y o f v i c t i ms a ge 14 a nd ol de rbe c orr obor a t e d by othe re vi de nc e oras t a t e m e ntm a de by the vi ct i m t o ano ther pers on w i thi n si x m on ths of the cr i m e. Id. at51 6, 12 0 S . C t . at 1624. T he a l t e r a t i on, w hi c h w a s pa s s e d a f t e rthe de f

e nda ntc om m i tt e d va r i ous s e xua l of f e ns e s a ga i ns thi s s t e pda ught e r , r a i s e d the a ge of the vi c t i m s f

orw hom c orr obor a t i on w a s r e qui r e d f r om 14 t o 18. I d. a t518, 120 S . C t . a t1625. T he S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthi s l aw w as “ un qu es t i on abl y” the fourth k i nd of l aw d e s c r ib e d in C a ld e r . I d . a t 5 3 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 1 6 3 1 . U nde rthe l a w i n e f

f e c ta tthe t i m e the a c t s w e r e c om m i tt e d, the prosec ut i on ’ s c as e w as l egal l y i nsuffi ci entand p et i t i on erw as ent i t l ed t o aj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , unl e s s the S t a t e c oul d pr oduc e both the v i c t i m ’ s t e s t i m o n y a n d c o rr o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e . T h e a m e n d e d l a w, how e ve r , c ha nge d the qua ntum of e vi de nc e ne c e s s a ry t o s us t a i n a co n v i ct i o n ; u n d er th e n ew l aw , p et i t i o n er co u l d b e (an d w as) c onvi c t e d on the vi c t i m ’ s t e s t i m ony a l one , w i thouta ny c orr obor a t i ng evi dence. Id. (e m ph as i s om i tt ed). T rott er ’ s a rgum entfa i l s. T he st atut e thatal l ow ed the use of vi ct i m -i m pact e v id e n c e d id n o t r e d u c e th e q u a n tu m o f e v id e n c e n e c e s s a ry f

o rth e g o v e rn m e n t to m e e ti t s bur de n of

pr oof a nd i s notthe ki nd of

e vi de nt i a ry rul e a ddr e s s e d by C a rm e l l a nd C a l de r . T he de c i s i on of the S upr e m e C our tof

F l or i daw a s not16

contra ryt o o r a n u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of “ cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). I V . CONCL US I ON T h e d en i al o f T ro tt er’ s p et i t i o n i s A FFI R M ED .