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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 86 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 00 69 -SPM

JONATHAN HUEY LAW RENCE, Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 3 0, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e: At i ss ue in th is cap it al cas e is whet he r de fen se co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e in Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 1 of 40fai li ng to see k aco m pe te nc y he ari ng at t he pe na lt y

ph as e o f th e d efen da nt ’s tri al , an d t he co ro ll ary qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e d efen da ntwas i n fa ctin co m pe te ntat t he ti m e h e en te reda pl ea o f gu il ty to t he bru ta l m ur de r of eig ht een -y ear- ol d J en ni fer Ro bi ns on . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h ab eas rel ie f on bo th co un ts . W e ag ree, an d
acco rd in gl y

affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt.

I. A. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s umm ari zedth e es se nt ia l fa ct s s urro un di ng th e gr is ly m ur de r in th is way : Lawren ce’s c o d efen dant , Je rem iah Marte l Ro dg ers , pi ck ed up ei gh te en -y ear- ol d Je nn ife r Ro bi ns on fro m he r m ot he r’s ho me o n May 7 , 19 98
. Ro dg ers an d Ro bi ns on m et Lawren ce, an d al l th ree dr ov e i n Lawren c e’s tru ck to a se cl ud ed area in th e woo ds
. Afte r im bi bi ng al co ho li c be ve rag es , Ro bi ns on ha d se x wit h Ro dg ers an d th en with Lawren ce. At so m e po in t th erea fte r, Ro dg ers sh ot Ro bi ns on in th e ba ck of t h e h ead us in g Lawren ce’s Lorc in .38 0 hand gu n. The gu ns ho t ren de re d Ro bi ns on in st an tl y un co ns ci ou s, an d sh e di ed m in ut es la te r. Lawren ce an d Rod ge rs lo ad ed Ro bi ns on ’s bo dy in to Lawren ce’s tru ck an d dr ov e furth er in to th e woo ds
. Lawren ce m ad e an in ci si on in to Ro bi ns on ’s le g an d rem ov ed he r cal f m u s c l e. Ro dg ers to ok Po la ro id pi ctur es of t h e bo dy, in cl ud in g a pi ctur e of Lawren ce’s ha nd ho ld in g Ro bi ns on ’s foo t. Lawren ce an d R od ge rs bu rie d R ob in so n a t t ha t s it e. In ve st ig at or s tra ced Ro bi n s o n ’s di sapp eara nc e to Lawren ce an d Ro dg ers . Whe n co nf

ro nt ed by In ve st i g a to r Tod d Han d, Lawren ce de ni ed kn owi ng Ro bi ns on an d co ns e n t e d to Han d’s reque st to se arch Lawren ce’s tra il er an d tru ck
. Afte r reco ve rin g m ul ti pl e no te s writ te n by Lawren ce and Po la ro id ph ot og rap hs de pi ct in g R ob in so n p os t-morte m , 2 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 2 of 40Han d arre st ed Lawren ce. One pa ge of th e reco ve red no te s st at es in pa rt:

“ ge t he r ve ry drun k,” “ y el l in he r ears to ch eck co ns ic ou se [s ic ], ” “ ev en sl ap ha rd ,” “ [r]ape m an y , m an y , m an y ti m es ,” “ ‘sli ce an d di ce,’ [d ]isec t [s ic ] co m pl et el y ,” “ba g up eat ab il e [s ic ] m eat s,” an d “ ba g re m ai ns an d bu ry an d bu rn . ” A n o t he r pa ge of no te s pr ov id es a li st of it em s an d ta sk s, so m e of whi ch ha d be en ch eck ed of f or sc rib bl ed o u t . Tha t li st in cl ud es “ co ol ers of ic e = fo r ne w m eat ,” st rawb erry win e, ev ercl ear al co ho l, sc al pe ls , Po la ro id fil m , an d “ .38 0 or -an d bo wies [kni ve s].” Oth er ite m s lo cat ed by inv es ti ga to rs du rin g th ei r se arch of Lawren ce’s tra il er an d tru ck in cl ud ed a bo x fo r a Lorc in .3 8 0 h a n dg un ; em pt y Po la ro id fil m pa ck ag es ; a pi ece of hu m an ti ss ue in Lawren ce’s free zer; a bl ue an d whi te ic e ch es t; an em pt y pl as ti c ic e ba g; di sp os ab le gl ov es ; a sc rap bo ok ; an d se ve ral bo ok s, in cl ud in g an an at om y bo ok en ti tl ed The In cred ib le Mac hi ne , wit hi n whi ch ha d be en m ark ed fema l e a n at omy pa ge s an d p e n li ne s dr awn at th e cal f se ct io n of a le g. Lawren ce subs eque nt ly co nf

es se d to hi s in vo lv em en t, aft er waiv in g hi s M i r a n da rig ht s, an d l edde te ct iv es to Ro bi ns on ’s bo dy. Lawren ce v . Sta te , 84 6 S o. 2 d 4 40 , 44 2- 43 (Fl a. 20 03 ) (“ Lawren ce I” ) (fo ot no te s
om it te d)
. Bec au se th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e g ui lt y pl ea an d p en al ty pha se pr oc eed in gs are atth e co re o f th is ap pe al , we reco un t t he m in so m e d et ai l. On Mar ch24 , 20 00 , th e d efen da nten te reda pl ea o f gu il ty in the San taRo saCo un ty Ci rcu itCo urt b efo re t he n- Ju dg e Ken ne th Bel l. Lawren ce’s t ria l co un se l, Elt on Kil la m an d An to in et te Sti tt , were b ot h e xp eri en cedcri m in al de fen se lawyers. At th e g ui lt y pl ea p ro ceed in gs , th e tr ia l co urt b eg an de li be rat el y , ask in g b ot h d efen se at to rn ey s i f th ey

were s at is fie d t ha t Lawre nc e’s de ci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as “ hi s
an d h is alo ne ”; bo th ag reedth atitwas. Th e tr ia l co urt was aware t ha t Lawre nc e 3 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 3 of 40ha d m en ta l d efi ci en ci es , andpre ss edco un se l fu rth er: “ Are y ou sat is fie d b ecau se

th ere a re s om e, I th in k s om e m en ta l i ss ue s an d s om e p sycho lo gi cal is su es th at we’ll b e g et ti ng in to in th e p en al ty pha se . Andth ere [ are] so m e li m it at io ns in hi s fu nc ti on in g a s I u nd ers ta nd . Butare you s at is fie d t ha t g iv en hi s cu rren t m en ta l si tu at io n a ndan y

ps y ch ol og ic al is su es th ere m ay be th athe un de rs ta nd s t he ve ry
se rio us na tu re an d c on se qu en ces of t hi s d eci si on ? ” Co un se l u na m bi gu ou sl y rep li edth atLawren ce u nd ers to odth ei r st rat eg y , whi ch was t o fo reg o agu il t p ha se
an d a vo idth e ri skof l os in g c red ib il it y wit h t he jury, esp eci al ly whe n fa cedwit h th e o ve rwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f Lawren ce’s g ui lt . They add edth atth e d eci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as ul ti m at el y th e d efen da nt ’s. W

he n p res se d fu rth er ab ou t wh ethe r Lawren ce was m erel y

fol lo win g t he di rect io n o f hi s co un se l b y pl ead in g g ui lt y , bo th att orne y s ag ai n a ss ur edth e tr ia l co urt t ha t t he de ci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as Lawren ce’s, an d t ha t t he de fen da ntha d s uf fic ie ntun de rs ta nd in g o f th e pr oc eed in gs . Not ab ly, de fen se co un se l Ki ll am ob se rv edth atLawren ce h ad pr ev io us ly been ev al ua te d fo r co m pe te nc y by two co urt-app oi nt edm en ta l h eal th
ex pe rts , Dr. Larso n a ndDr. Bin gh am , in co nn ect io n wi th a pr io r m ur de r pr oc eed in g a ndha d b een fou ndco m pe te ntto pro ceedby bot h. The tri al co urt b eg an anex te ns iv e co ll oquy with Lawren ce h im se lf. Th e
co urt re pe at ed ly ask edth e d efen da ntwhet he r th e d eci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as hi s
4 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 4 of 40own , rep hr as in g t he qu es ti on s an d a sk in g t he m m an y ti m es in ord er t o c on firm th at Lawren ce u nd ers to odth e n atur e o f th e p ro ceed in gs . Lawren ce’s an swe rs , whi le pr ed om in an tl y

iny es or n o fo rm , were co ns is te ntth ro ug ho utth e le ng th y co ll oq uy,
an d e ve ry res po ns e in di cat edth athe un de rs to odth e n atur e o f th e p ro ceed in gs an d th atth e d eci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as hi s al on e. One r ep res en ta ti ve po rti on of t he
co ll oq uy wentth is way : THE COURT: D o y ou un de rs ta nd th at th is is y ou r deci sio n, not y our at to rn ey ’s de ci si on or an y on e el se ’s de ci si on ; y ou r m ot he r’s or an y on e el se ’s to m ak e fo r y ou ? Thi s is y ou r de ci si on . Do y ou un de rs ta nd th is ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes , si r. THE COURT: Is th is de ci si on to pl ead gu il ty y ou r de ci si on or is it y ou r at to rn ey ’s? THE DE FENDANT: It i s m in e. THE COURT: Is th is de ci sio n to ple ad gui lty y our moth er’s d eci si on ory ou r de ci si on ? THE DE FENDANT: It i s m in e. THE COURT: And ag ai n, o n l y yo u can de ci de whe th er or no t t o pl ead gu il ty. Thi s de ci si on is no t y ou r at to rn ey ’s to make. And on ly y ou can m ak e th e de ci si on . You ’re th e ul ti m at e au th or it y in m ak in g th is fu nd am en ta l d eci si on . Do y ou un de rs ta ndth is ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes , si r. THE COURT: Anddo y ou ha ve an y qu es ti on ab ou t wha t I’ve jus t sa id or wha t I s a i d e a r l i er ei th er qu es ti on in g y ou or ta lk in g to th e
5 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 5 of 40at to rn ey s?

THE DE FENDANT: No, s ir. THE COURT: Is th is de ci si on y ou rs alo ne ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes , si r. THE COURT: Didy ou r at to rn ey s m ak e th is de ci si on fory ou ? THE DE FENDANT: No, s ir. THE COURT: So itis y ou r de ci si on ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes , si r. Mo reo ve r, du rin g t he pl ea co ll oq uy, the Sta te reci te d t he ess en ti al fact s
su rro un di ng th e m

ur de r of Jen ni fer R ob in so n. Am on g o th er t hi ng s, the pro fferof pr oo f in cl ud edth e fo ll owi ng : t ha t Lawre nc e an d h is co -d efen da ntRo dg ers to ok th e v ic ti m

Ro bi ns on to a rem ot e p artof S an taRo saCo un ty in Lawre nc e’s truc k
an d g othe r dr

un k; th atRo dg ers ki ll edRo bi ns on wit h asi ng le sh otto th e h ead fro m a .38 0 h an dg un be lo ng in g t o Lawre nc e; th atLawren ce s ub se qu en tl y rem ov ed
on e o f Ro bi ns on ’s cal f m us cl es ; an d t ha t Lawre nc e h adwrit te n n ot es de ta il in g t he pl an s fo r th atev en in g, wh ic h i nc lu de d g etti ng th e v ic ti m dru nk , ki ll in g h er, an d di ss ect in g h er co rp se . The t ria l co urt t he n a sk edth e d efen da ntLawren ce wh ethe r he un de rs to od“ th os e fac ts as s ta te d b y th e st at e”; Lawren ce re pl ie d t ha t h e d id , an d i nd eedth athe be li ev edth ey were co rrec t. The tri al co urt al so de ta il edeach of

6 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 6 of 40th e fo urco un ts lev el edag ai ns t t he de fen da nt(co ns pi racy to c omm itfir stde gr ee

m ur de r, gi vi ng alc oh ol to a pe rs on un de r 21 y ears of a ge , pri nc ip al to fir stde gr ee
m ur de r, an d abu se of ade adhu m an co rp se ) an d a sk edth e d efen dantwhet he r he
un de rs to odeach of t he ch arg es . Lawrenc e rep li edin th e aff irmativ e as to each ch arg e. The t ria l co urt al so ex pl ai ne d t o t he de fen da ntth atif h e p le ad edgu il ty, th ere wer e o nl y

two po ss ib le sen te nc es av ai labl e to hi m -- li fe i n p ris on wit ho ut pa ro le or d eath. Th e d efen dantag ai n s ta te d t ha t h e u nd ers to od
. At t he co nc lu si on of alen gt hy int erro ga ti on , th e tr ia l co urt ac cep te d t he pl ea, fi nd in g t ha t i t h adbe en en te redfreel y , kn owi ng ly, an d v ol un ta ril y . The co urt fu rth er fo un d tha t t he de ci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as m ad e b y Lawren ce h im se lf,
ev en inli gh t o f Lawren ce’s “ li m it edin te ll ectua l ab il it y an d m en ta l i ss ue s.” Whi le th e tr ia l co urt d idno t m ak e a s pe ci fic co m pe te nc y fin di ng (be cau se th e is su e o f Lawren ce’s co m

pe te nc y was n ev er ra is ed ), th e co urt’s d et ai le d c ol lo qu y an d fin di ng s t he m se lv es be ar d ire ct ly on Lawre nc e’s co m pe te nc y at t he ti m e, pa rti cu la rly the de fen da nt ’s rat io na l an d fa ctua l u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e n atur e o f th e pr oc eed in gs . See Du sky

v. Un it edSta te s, 3 62 U.S. 40 2, 4 02 (19 60 ) (p er cu ria m ) (s et ti ng for th th e te stfor

a de fen da nt ’s com

pe te nc y to st an d t ria l as “ whe th er h e ha s s uf fic ie ntpre se ntab il it y

to co ns ul t wi th hi s l awy er wi th a reas on ab le de gr ee o f rat io na l u nd ers ta nd in g -- an d wh ethe r he ha s a r at io na l as well as f actua l
7 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 7 of 40un de rs ta nd in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im ”).

The pe na lt y

ph as e tr ia l was pre se nt edto th e jury in M arch 20 00 , a week aft er t he gu il ty ple a. Two i nc id en ts oc cu rreddu rin g t he pro ceed in gs th atare
cen tra l t o t he cla im s ra is edin th is ap pe al . The fi rs t o ccu rredwhen a St at e cri m e
sc en e te ch ni ci an was t es ti fy in g o n d ire ctex am in at io n b y th e St at e ab ou t t he sce ne whe re the vi ct im

Ro bi ns on ’s bo dy was lo cat ed . As sh e b eg an to tes ti fy
co nc ern in g t he lo cat io n, an d, m or e p art ic ul arl y , th e m ut il at edst at e o f th e v ic ti m ’s bo dy andth e sh al lo w gra ve in whi ch sh e was pl aced , def en se co un se l St it t t ol d t he
co urt t ha t “ ou r cl ie ntha s ju strep orte d t ha t h e is ha vi ng ha ll uc in at io ns an d fla sh ba ck s.” Th e tr ia l co urt i m m ed ia te ly ord ereda 15 m in ut e rec es s, an d t he fo ll owi ng be nc h c on fere nc e o ccu rredaft er the jury ha d l eftth e co urtro om : MS. STITT: You r Hon or , ap pr ox im at el y 5 m inut es ag o m y cli en t rep orte d to m e th at du rin g th e st at e’s ta lk in g abo ut th e pi ctur es an d th e po s i t i o n o f th e bo dy an d et cet era, th at he be ga n to ha ve a, no t on ly vi su al bu t au di to ry

ha ll uc in at io ns an d fl as hb ack
. I’ve as ke d th e co urt fo r a 15 m in ut e re c e s s f o r Co urt Secu rit y Offi cer Ja rv is to be wit h h im

-- h e li ke s Off

ic er J arv is , he i s v ery cal m in g. I th in k th at we sh ou ld reas se ss th e si tu at io n in 15 m in ut es . If he is st il l ex pe rie nc in g th os e I’m no t su re what we’ll do at th at po in t, whethe r or no t we’ll ex cu se hi m fro m th e c o u r t r o o m so he do es no t ha ve to he ar th atpa rt o r -- THE COURT: Let’s jus t se e wha t happ en s an d se e wha t Ja rv is an d he sa y aft er he ’s ha d a ch an ce to ta lk to hi m a li tt le bi t. A n d I d o n ’t
8 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 8 of 40kn ow if he wan ts to lo okat p os si bl y ge tt in g t he jail nu rs e to co m e ou t, bu t I d on ’t kn ow i f wha t [s ic ] do es an y go od
. MS. STITT: W e’ll wai t 1 5 m in ut es an d s ee. Afte r th e 1 5 m in ut e rec es s, t he tri al co urt as ke d Lawre nc e if he was o ka y , and Lawren ce re pl ie d tha t h e was . Defen se co un se l al so to ldth e co urt the y were
sa ti sf ie d Lawre nc e was read y

to pro ceed , andth e St at e p ro ceed edfro m th ere. The sec on d i nc id en t o ccu rredlat er o n the same day , when th e St at e was in tro du ci ng in to ev id en ce an d p la y in g t o t he jury a tape -rec or de d s ta te m en t g iv en by Lawrenc e to law en fo rcem en t re ga rd in g h is in vo lv em en t i n t he pri orm ur de r of hi s co us in , whi ch ha d b eenpro se cu te d i n afed eral di st ric t co urt. The tap e was st op pe d p art -way

th ro ug h wh en tri al co un se l St it t t ol d t he co urt t ha t Lawre nc e was

“ in di cat in g t o [h er] th athe is be gi nn in g t o h al lu ci na te ag ai n a ndhe wou ldli ke to be ex cu se d fo r th e p la y in g o f th e tape s.” Ag ai n the jury was sen t o utof t he
co urtro om , andag ai n a n e xt en de d c ol lo qu y to okpl ace a m on g the tri al jud ge , Lawren ce, an d c ou ns el
. The co urt b eg anby con firm in g t ha t Lawre nc e und ers to odhi s ri gh t t o b e pr es en t fo r th e en ti re t ria l, an d t he n s ou gh t t o d is cern whet he r Lawren ce was tru ly ha ll uc in at in g o r whe th er h e was si m pl y un co m fo rtabl e rel iv in g t he de ta il s o f th e
m ur de r of hi s co us in an d h eari ng hi m se lf t al ki ng to law en fo rcem en t ab ou t t ha t

9 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 9 of 40m

ur de r. The co urt as ke d Lawre nc e, “ Andy ou r co un se l h as us edth e wor d ‘hal lu ci na ti on ,’ bu t wh atwe are ac tu al ly talk in g abo utis fla shba ck s, re m em be rin g wha t h ap pe ne d? ,” to whi ch Lawren ce re pl ie d “ Yes .” The t ria l co urt al so ask edth e St at e to weig h i n, an d t he Sta te to ldth e co urt t ha t “ [t]he st at e d oe s n otha ve an ob jecti onif i t i s an is su e o f di sc om fo rt r athe r th an co m pe te nc y , andMs . Sti ttan d Mr. Ki ll am

ass ur e m e th atitis .” The co urt s po ke ag ai n wi th Lawren ce atlen gt h i n o rd er t o c la rif y what Lawren ce was ex pe rie nc in g. Co un se l St it t p res se d Lawre nc e to tel l t he co urt wh at he ha d re po rte d t o h er, an d t he fol lo win g l en gthy col lo qu y en su ed : THE COURT: Yes
. St ep up he re. Des cri be to m e wha t is go in g on . THE DE FENDANT: Mai nl y r a t h e r n o t be he re whe n th ey he ar, I gu es s my own vo ic e o n t he re. MS. STITT: Tell m e wha t y ou to ld m e ab ou t it be in g th e vo ic e of y ou r br ot he r. THE DE FENDANT: I’d jus t ra th er n othe ar i t. MS. STITT: Ju st a m in ut e ag o y ou to ld m e th at y ou were h eari ng th e v oi ce o f y ou r br ot he r, y ou r de adbro th er. THE DE FENDANT: Tha t’s wha t th e tape s o u nd s li ke
. And I jus t do n’t wan t t o h ear i t. MS. STITT: And di d y ou sa y an yth in g to m e ab ou t ha vi ng vi su al ha ll uc in at io ns ?

10 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 10 of 40THE DE FENDANT: Whe n I was ba ck ou t in th e fie ld a n d I d o n ’t

wan t t o b e o utth ere. THE COURT: So wha t y ou are rem em be rin g is actua ll y th e ev en t? THE DE FENDANT: Yes
. THE COURT: Wha t h ap pe ne d t ha t n ig ht ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes
. THE COURT: As y ou are li st en i n g t o yo u r v o i c e an d it is be in g pl ay ed y ou a r e r e l i v i n g it in y ou r m in d, is th at wha t y ou are ta lk in g ab ou t? THE DE FENDANT: Yes
. THE COURT: B u t i s i t a t ru e p i c t u r e i n yo u r m in d o f w h a t happ en ed , is itjus t l ik e a rep la y ? THE DEFENDANT : Yes , si r. It is -- it m ak es m e real ne rv ou s an d m ak es m e swe atreal ba d. THE COURT: B u t yo u a r e n o t he ari ng ot he r pe op le ’s vo ic es o r t h i n g s th at are no t rep la y in g? I am tryin g to di st in gu is h be twee n y ou r rep la y in g i n y ou r m in d wha t happ en ed in th e pa st as op po se d to real st ran ge th in gs go in g o n? THE DE FENDANT: I can ’t real ly exp la in it
. THE COURT: Is it a rep la y of wha t happ en e d ? I s t h a t w h a t is tro ub li ng y ouor a re y ou he ari ng ot he r vo ic es or - - THE DE FENDANT: I do n’t kno w forsu re. THE COURT: Onl y

y ou can tel l m e.

11 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 11 of 40THE DEFENDANT : -- I’m no t real su re wha t to th in k, I gu es s tha t

I co ul d g o s itba ck

do wn o r so m ethi ng -- MS. STITT: You jus t wan t t o b e ex cu se d? THE DE FENDANT: Yes , m a’am
. MS. STITT: Oka y . THE COURT: And it ’s be ca u s e yo u a r e u n c o mfo r t ab l e he ari ng y ou rs el f de sc rib e wha t h ap pe ne d, i s t ha t t he reas on ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes
. THE COURT: I s t h e r e a n y o t h e r reas on othe r th an y ou ar e ju s t un co m fo rtabl e li st en in g to y ou rs el f de sc rib e, de sc rib e wha t you d id , is th atth e rea so n? THE DE FENDANT: (No ds he adaffi rm at iv e) I t hi nkso . THE COURT: Anythi ng els e? Or is th atth e rea so n? THE DE FENDANT: I gu es s t ha t’s i t. THE COURT: Oka y . I ’l l a l l o w yo u t o st ep ou t an d fin d th aty ou ha ve free l y , an d vo lu nt ari ly, an d kn owi ng ly waiv ed y ou r rig ht to be pr es en t dur in g t he pre se nt at io n. At t he be gi nn in g o f th e fo ll owi ng da y of t he pe na lt y

ph as e, th e co urt as ke d Lawren ce i f he was “ he ari ng an y no is es or a nyth in g i n [h is ] he ad ,” an d Lawre nc e rep li ed“No, s ir.” The re were no furth er re po rts of f la sh ba ck s o r ot he r in ci de nt s dur in g t he pe na lty ph as e. The ju ry

reco m m en de d d eath b y

a vo te of 1 1 t o 1 . After a
12 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 12 of 40Sp en cer he ari ng , th e tr ia l ju dg e acc ep te d t he jury’ s re co m m en da ti on an d 1
se nt en cedLawren ce t o d eat h. Lawre nc e ap pe al edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, rai si ng m an y

is su es , no ne of wh ic h a re rel ev an t t od ay . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt affi rm edLawren ce’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e, Lawren ce I, 8 46 So . 2dat 4 42 , and th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari rev ie w, 54 0 U.S. 9 52 (20 03 ). B. So on th erea fte r, Lawren ce co m m en ceda se rie s o f co ll at eral att ack s, fi li ng a Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 m ot io n a ndth en a habe as pe ti ti on inst at e co urt. The se pe ti ti on s ra is edni ne cla im s fo r rel ie f, in cl ud in g t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f tr ia l
co un se l. See Lawren ce v . Sta te , 96 9 S o. 2 d 2 94 (Fl a. 20 07 ) (“ Lawren ce II ”). The st at e p os tc on vi ct io n c ou rt c on du ct edanev id en ti ary he ari ng in Nov em be r 20 05
co nc ern in g i ne ffec ti ve ne ss of t ria l co un se l, am on g o th er cl ai m s. Lawren ce ca ll ed fiv e m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts at t he he ari ng , who off ereddi ve rg en t o pi ni on s ab ou t Lawren ce’s co m

pe te nc y bo th at t he ti m e o f th e g ui lt y pl ea an d t he pe na lt y

ph as e
an d a t the ti m e o f th e p os tc on vi ct io n h eari ng so m e fi ve y ears lat er. Fi rs t ca ll edwas Dr. Fr an k Woo d, an ex pe rt i n n eu ro ps y ch ol og y an d P ET See Spence r v. State, 615 So. 2d 688, 690-91 (F la. 1993) (pr oviding f or a he aringafte r 1 the jury has re commended a

sentenc e but bef

ore the trial judg e has imposed a sentenc e, the purpose of

which is to: “a) g ive the def endant, his counse l, and the State, an oppor tunity to be hear d; b) aff

ord, if appr opriate, both the State a nd the def

endant a n opportunity

to present additional evidenc e; c) allow both sides to comment on or re but information in any prese ntence or medica l report; and d) aff ord the de fenda

nt an opportunity

to be hea rd in person” ). 13 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 13 of 40sc an s. Dr. Woodha d b een ask edearl ie r by defe ns e co un se l t o c on du cta PET sca n

an d e va lu at e Lawren ce b efo re t he tri al ba ck in 20 00 . Dr. W oo d’s i n- pe rs on
ev al ua ti onof Lawr en ce o ccu rredon th e week en d b etween th e en try of a g ui lt y pl ea an d t he st artof t he pe na lty ph as e. W oo d t es ti fie d dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e ab ou t Lawre nc e’s m en ta l i ll ne ss , alt ho ug h h is pe na lt y ph as e te st im on y

di d n ot ad dr es s t he de fen da nt ’s com pe te nc y , no r was he ask edto ev al ua te Lawren ce fo r
co m pe te nc y at t ha t t im e. Dr. W oo d d idop in e th atth e PET sc an rev eal ed“ an im pa ire d p ers on wit h l eftfro nt al da m ag e” an d t ha t i t “ was cert ai nl y typic al of t he
wor stcas es of s ch iz op hr en iath atwe se e.” Dr. W oo d c on cl ud edth atth e d efen dant
was sch iz op hr en ic
. Dr. W oo d was als o a sk edat t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng to rev ie w th e pe na lty ph as e in ci de nt s an d t he pl ea co ll oq uy. He op in edth atLawren ce was no t
co m pe te ntat e ithe r ti m e o n a cco un t o f hi s s ch iz op hr en iaan d t he rep orte d ha ll uc in at io ns , alt ho ug h h e qua li fie d h is an swe r, ob se rv in g t ha t h e h adno t pe rs on al ly obs erv edLawren ce dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e, an d t he refo re h is op in io n ha d t o b e m or e g en eri c ab ou t h im an d wh athe un de rs to odab ou t h is il ln es s. When
as ke d abo utth e g ui lt y

pl ea co ll oq uy, andth e lo ng ser ie s o f y es or n o a ns wers gi ve n b y Lawren ce, Dr. W oo d s ai d t ha t i t was im po ss ib le to kn ow wh atth e de fen da ntun de rs to od , and , in de ed , th atitwas a lm os t i m po ss ib le th atth e
14 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 14 of 40de fen da ntun de rs to odth e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f wha t h e was be in g a sk ed
.

Lawren ce al so cal le d Dr. Ro be rt Napi er, a l ic en se d p sycho lo gi st , to tes ti fy
on hi s b eh al f. Nap ie r al so ha d t es ti fie d a t t he pe na lt y ph as e reg ard in g Lawre nc e’s
sc hi zo ph ren ia . Dr. Napi er’s ev al ua ti on of Lawr en ce o ccu rredon Feb ru ary 28 , 19 96 , fou r y ears be fo re t he pe na lt y ph as e, in co nn ect io n wi th a cl ai m for So ci al Secu rit y di sabi li ty. Dr. Napi er d idno t ev al ua te Lawren ce fo r co m pe te nc y at t he ti m e o f th e p en al ty pha se , bu t t es ti fie d t ha t i f as ke d fo r hi s o pi ni onba ckth en , he
wou ldha ve ha d “ se rio us co nc ern s” ab ou t Lawre nc e’s cap aci ty andwou ldha ve
reco m m en de d fu rth er as se ss m en t. Dr. Nap ie r al so ev al ua te d Lawre nc e ag ai n i n 20 05 in co nn ect io n wi th th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Dr. Napi er’s d ia gn os is in 19 96 was t ha t Lawre nc e h ad“ Sch iz oa ffec ti ve Dis or de r whi ch is a fo rm of s ch iz op hr en iawit h a n e m ot io na l co m po ne ntsu ch as de pr es si on wit hdrawal .” Dr. Napi er o bs erv edth athe “ saw a si gn ifi can t im pa irment i n t ho ug ht , con cen tra ti on , att en ti on ,” an d t ha t t he de fen da ntwas po ss ib ly resp on di ng to in te rn al st im ul i s uc h a s h al lu ci na ti on s. Dr. Nap ie r ad de d th atLawren ce was “

jus t o n t he cu ff b etweenlo w ave rag e an d a ve rag e” in te ll ig en ce. Alt ho ug h Dr. Nap ie r’s te st im on y on di rectsu gg es te d t ha t h e h ad do ub ts ab ou t Lawre nc e’s cap aci ty to u nd ers ta ndwhathe pl ead edgu il ty to, h e
m ad e itcle ar o n c ro ss ex am in at io n t ha t h e was no t o ffer in g aform al op in io n abo ut
15 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 15 of 40Lawren ce’s co m pe te nc y eit he r atth e ti m e o f th e g ui lt y pl ea o r th e p en al ty pha se , be cau se he ha d n otev al ua te d Lawre nc e th en . Dr. Barry Crown , a ps y ch ol og is t, was Lawren ce’s t hi rdex pe rt wi tn es s. He to o h adtes ti fie d a t the pe na lt y ph as e. He ev al ua te d Lawre nc e ag ai n i n F eb ru ary 20 05 to de te rm in e h is co m pe te nc y to pro ceedat t he po st co nv ic ti onhe ari ng . Whe n
as ke d o n d ire ctex am in at io n wh athi s fi nd in gs were i n t he 20 05 ev al ua ti on , Dr. Cro wn o pi ne d t ha t Lawre nc e h adsi gn ifi can t n eu ro ps y ch ol og ic al pro bl em s, an d th atth e d efen dantwas n otco m pe te ntto pro ceedor a ss is t co un se l i n t he po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs . The p rimary ba si s fo r th e co nc lu si on was t ha t t he de fen da ntwas c og ni ti ve ly im pa ire d a ndha d alev el of “ th ou gh t d is tu rb an ce, [s o] th athi s at te nt io n, h is m em ory , andhi s re cal l [we re] un rel iabl e.” Cro wn ad de d t ha t h e h adev al ua te d Lawre nc e fo r co m pe te nc y at s om e p oi nt aft er Lawren ce’s arr es t i n M ay 19 98 , at l eas t a year be fo re t he pe na lt y ph as e was
co nduc te d i n t he in st an t m ur de r tr ia l. He co nc lu de d t ha t Lawre nc e was no t
co m pe te ntat t ha t t im e ei th er, b uthe ackno wled ge d t ha t t wo o th er p sycho lo gi st s, Dr. Bin gh am

an d Dr. Lars on , hadals o e va lu at edLawren ce i n Oct ob er 1 99 8 a nd bo th ha d fo un d Lawre nc e to be co m pe te nt . The fou rth m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt c al le d a t the st at e p os tc on vi ct io n pr oc eed in g was Dr. Jam es Lars on , a co urt-app oi nt edps y ch ol og is t wh o e va lu at ed
16 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 16 of 40Lawren ce i n Ap ril 20 05 forco m pe te nc y to pro ceed . Dr. Larso n t es ti fie d t ha t be cau se of the ser io us na tu re o f th e cas e an d t he co m pl ex it y of t he is su e, he m et wit h Lawre nc e o n s ix di ffer en t o ccas io ns . Dr. Larso n n ot edth athe ha d b een ap po in te d b y

a jud ge to ev al ua te Lawren ce i n 1 99 8 fo r co m pe te nc y to pro ceedin th e fed eral m

ur de r cas e, bu t t ha t h is 20 05 de te rm in at io n was no t b as edon da ta dr awnfro m

th e ear li er 1 99 8 e va lu at io n. In20 05 , Dr. Larso n fo un d t ha t Lawre nc e was co m pe te ntto pro ceed , and , in de ed , th atLawren ce was m al in ge rin g b as edonres ul ts dra wn fr om th e te stof
m em ory m al in ge rin g, o r TOMM. Dr. Lars on op in edth atth e d efen dant ’s in co ns is te ntan swe rs to qu es ti on s s uc h a s wh ethe r he un de rs to odwhatrol e a jud ge pl ay s, d em on st rat edth atLawren ce was m al in ge rin g, “ orch oo si ng no t t o p utfor th th e m ax im

um effo rt, o r no t i nv ol ve d wi th th e ta sk , or try in g t o p res en t h im se lf a s
m or e dul l t ha n h e rea ll y

is .” The fif th an d fi na l m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt wa s Dr. Lawre nc e Gil gu n, wh o h ad al so be en ap po in te d b y

th e co urt t o e va lu at e Lawren ce fo r co m pe te nc y to pro ceed in po st co nv ic ti on . Dr. Gilg un m etwit h the de fen da ntfou r ti m es be fo re re nd eri ng
an op in io n t ha t Lawre nc e was co m pe te nt . Dr. Gilg untes ti fie d t ha t h e u se d d at a dr awnfro m

th e sa m e b at te ry

of t es ts th atDr. Larso n h adem pl oyed, i nc lu di ng th e TOMM, b utth athi s co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on was i nd ep en de ntan d h e d idno t
17 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 17 of 40co ns ul t wi th Dr. Larso n.

Dr. Gil gu n o pi ne d t ha t Lawre nc e was m al in ge rin g a ndth athe was
co m pe te ntto pro ceed . Whe n a sk edby L awren ce’s co un se l wh y he di d n ot ad m in is te r a s eco ndm al in ge rin g t es t af te r Lawren ce’s p erfo rm an ce o n t he TOMM, Dr. Gil gu n d idno t m in ce wo rd s, s ay in g, “ I’ve g iv en hi m a te stto see if h e is gi vi ng ithi s b es t s ho t. He d id n’t. Andth at ’s hi s ch oi ce, n otm in e; so I go t cl ear
res ul ts . . . . They were cle ar tha t h e was m al in ge rin g.” Dr. Gilg un tes ti fie d tha t t he
m os t l ik el y

ex pl an at io n was th atLawren ce “ was att em pt in g t o app ear m or e im pa ire d t ha n h e actua ll y

is .” Dr. Gil gu n e xp la in edth athi s fi nd in g o f co m pe te nc y
was on ly bas edin pa rt o n t he m al in ge rin g t es t, an d tha t wh athe real ly bas edhi s op in io n o n was whatLawren ce t ol d h im du rin g the ev al ua ti on ab ou t “ hi s
un de rs ta nd in g a t an d a ro un d the ti m e o f hi s t ria l.” Afte r th e co nc lu si on of t he len gt hy andco nf li ct in g m en ta l h eal th tes ti m on y pr es en te d, t he st at e p os tc on vi ct io n c ou rt f ou ndth atLawren ce was co m pe te ntto pr oc eeddu rin g p os tc on vi ct io n, s pe ci fic al ly credi ti ng th e te st im on y an d t he rep ort of Dr. Gilg un , andob se rv in g t ha t Lawre nc e h adde m on st rat edanab il it y to
co m m un ic at e with p os tc on vi ct io n c ou ns el
. Apa rt f ro m th e m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts , th e o th er re le vanttes ti m on y pre se nt ed atth e p os tc on vi ct io n h eari ng cam e fro m Lawren ce’s tria l co un se l, Ki ll am an d
18 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 18 of 40St it t, an d fr om Ju dg e Bel l. Kil la m

fir sttes ti fie d abo uthi s s ub st an ti al ex pe rie nc e: he ha d b een a publ ic de fen de r fo r 31 y ears at t he ti m e o f th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , ha d h an dl edap pr ox im at el y 25 cap it al cas es be fo re Lawren ce’s ca se , andha d at te nd edcap it al li ti ga ti on seminar s. Kil la m th en tes ti fie d t ha t h e was ab le to eli ci t
res po ns es fro m

Lawren ce wh en he ask edLawren ce que st io ns , bu t t ha t t he an swe rs
were s ho rt andge ne ral ly y es or n o, an d t ha t h e h adto lea d h im to ge t m or e d et ai l. Kil la m sai d tha t h e h adno t wo rk edon Lawren ce’s ca se at t he ti m e o f th e Oct ob er 19 98 co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on s b y

Dr. Larso n andDr. Bin gh am , bu t t ha t h e h adread th e rep orts an d h adgre atres pe ctforDr. Larso n’s o pi ni on s. Kil la m was a sk ed whe th er h e sa w “ an y

ki ndof d ecayin g o r de ge ne rat io n o f [Lawren ce’s] abi li ty to
co m m un ic at e an d t ha t t y

pe of thi ng ,” to whi ch Kil la m res po nd ed , “

No. He s eem ed
as he was d es cri be d t o m e, be fo re I m ethi m , th e sa m e.” On cr os s ex am in at io n, Ki ll am tes ti fie d tha t Lawre nc e was a go odli st en er
an d s eem edto co m

pr eh en d wh atKil la m

was t el li ng hi m . Kill am

als o t es ti fie d th at , in li gh t o f th e Oct ob er 1 99 8 c om pe te nc y ev al ua ti on s an d t he factth atth e de fen da ntha d p rev io us ly ent eredgu il ty ple as on two ot he r oc cas io ns wit ho utan y
co m pe te nc y pro bl em s, h e v ie wedLawren ce’s co m pe te nc y as h av in g b een de ci de d al read y . Kill am

was a ls o a sk edsp eci fic al ly abo utth e p en al ty pha se in ci de nt s. He ob se rv edth atde fen se co un se l St it t was si tt in g wi th Lawren ce atth e ti m e, so he
19 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 19 of 40di d n otrem em be r wha t Lawre nc e d idto ge t St it t’s at te nt io n o r wha t the de fen da nt ha d s ai d t o h er. He ad de d t ha t h e d idno t b el ie ve Lawren ce was ha vi ng ha ll uc in at io ns ; ra th er, the de fen da nt“ was ha vi ng a bo utwit h h is co ns ci en ce.” If Kil la m th ou gh t t ha t t he de fen da ntwas a ctua ll y ha ll uc in at in g, h e wou ldha ve ask ed fo r a co m pe te nc y ex am in at io n. Ju dg e Bel l t es ti fie d t el ep ho ni cal ly. As fo r co m pe te nc y , he s ai d t ha t atth e pe na lty ph as e h eari ng he was t ry in g t o d is ti ng ui sh be twee n wh ethe r Lawren ce was tru ly hal lu ci na ti ng or wh ethe r he was “ jus t s im pl y be in g d is tu rb edby the fla sh ba ck s re m em

be rin g wh atwas g oi ng on .” He de te rm in edth atLawren ce was
on ly hav in g fl as hb ack s. He fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t h e wou ldha ve gra nt eda reque st fo r a co m pe te nc y he ari ng if St it t o r Kil la m ha d re qu es te d o ne . On cr os s
ex am in at io n b y

th e St at e, Bel l s ai d t ha t h e h adpre vi ou sl y en co un te redth e de fen da ntin th e juv en il e co urt s y st em an d h e h adno t o bs erv edan y di ffer en ce i n Lawren ce’s b eh av io r. Lawren ce n ex t ca ll edtri al co un se l St it t, wh o t es ti fie d t ha t s he was a ss ig ne d to Lawren ce’s ca se sh ortl y aft er h is arres t i n M ay

19 98
. Sh e te st ifi edth athe r in it ia l i m pr es si on of Lawr en ce was th athe was n otco m pe te nt , andth atsh e
m ai nt ai ne d t hi s i m

pr es si on th ro ug ho uthe r rep res en ta ti on of h im . She tes ti fie d th atsh e was co nc ern edab ou t Lawre nc e’s co m pe te nc y at t he ti m e, th atsh e was 20 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 20 of 40aware th atsh e co ul d h av e as ke d t he co urt fo r a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , andth at sh e reg ret te d v ery m

uc h h er d eci si on no t t o d o s o. Sh e al so tes ti fie d t ha t s he kn ew Dr. Bin gh am

an d Dr. Lars on ha d e va lu at edLawren ce i n Oct ob er 1 99 8 a ndha d fo un d Lawre nc e co m

pe te ntto pro ceed
. On cr os s ex am in at io n b y

th e St at e, St it t t es ti fie d m or e fu ll y ab ou t h er l eg al
ex pe rie nc e: sh e h adbe en a publ ic de fen de r fo r 20 or 2 1 years p rio r to rep res en ti ng Lawren ce, an d h adpre vi ou sl y ha nd le d m

ur de r cas es , in cl ud in g o ne cap it al cas e. Sh e ag ai n a ckno wled ge d h er awar en es s o f th e Oct ob er 1 99 8 c om pe te nc y
ev al ua ti on s b y

Drs. Bi ng ha m

an d Lar so n, an d was ask ed : “ Dur in g the co ur se of ti m e th aty ou rep res en te d h im di d h is be ha vi or

at a ny tim e ch an ge to wher e y ou fel t t ha t you n eed edan ot he r co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on ot he r th an th e ti m e atth e tr ia l si tu at io n o r no w up on hi nd si gh t t hi nkso ? ,” to whi ch Sti ttrep li ed , “ No, s ir. Hi s be ha vi orrem ai ne d p ret ty con si st en t.” St it t al so tes ti fie d t ha t wh en Lawren ce
cam e b ackin to co urt af

te r th e fi rs t o f th e p en al ty pha se in ci de nt s, s he di d n ot be li ev e th atLawren ce was ha vi ng an y ha ll uc in at io ns . Fi na ll y , Cou rt S ecu rit y

Offic er J arv is , th e o ffi cer wi th who m Lawren ce sp ok e dur in g t he rece ss aft er t he fir stpe na lt y ph as e in ci de nt , bri efl y

tes ti fie d. He ha d p rev io us ly spe ntti m e wit h Lawre nc e, ha vi ng be en ass ig ne d t o a cco m pany Lawren ce t o g etth e PET sc an . On d ire ctex am in at io n b y th e St at e, Offi cer J arv is
21 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 21 of 40was ask edwhathe an d Lawre nc e ta lk edab ou t dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e rec es s, t o whi chJarvi s re pl ie d: “ I do n’t re m em be r ex actwordforword , bu t, I m ean , I ba si cal ly ask edhi m

was h e al l ri gh t, b ecau se I kn ew he was ups etov er s om ethi ng th atwenton . Andhe to ldm e, y eah . He was -- I m ean , he ju st-- h e sa idhe jus t di dn ’t wantto he ar t he tap es . It m ad e itsee m li ke itwas a ll happ en in g a ll ov er ag ai n.” The st at e p os tc on vi ct io n c ou rt d en ie d re li ef o n a ll of t he pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m s. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed . Lawrenc e II, 9 69 So . 2d29 4. In th or ou gh ly ad dr es si ng Lawren ce’s Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m th atco un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to reque sta co m

pe te nc y he ari ng , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad op te d t he
an al y si s o f th e p os tc on vi ct io n t ria l co urt, wh ic h a dd res se d b oth t he pe rfo rm an ce
an d p reju di ce p ro ng s o f St ric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8 (1 98 4) : Intu rn in g t o t he m eri ts of t hi s ca se , th e p os tc on vi ct io n c ou rt d en ie d th is cla im as f ol lo ws: In th e in st an t cas e, Mr. Kil la m te st ifi ed th at ba se d o n h is co nv ers at io ns wit h th e Defen da nt an d hi s ex pe r i e n ce th at th e Defen da nt was no t ha vi ng a “ co m pe te nc y pr ob le m ; he was ha vi ng a bo u t wit h hi s co ns ci en ce.” As su ch , Mr. Kil la m te st ifi ed th at b a s ed on hi s ex pe rie nc e an d wha t was ob se rv ed du rin g t h e pe na lt y ph as e he ari ng h e d id no t th in k th e Defen da nt was in co m pe te nt th us th ere was no ne ed fo r a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on . Ms
. St it t te st ifi ed th at aft er co n s ul ta ti on wit h co -co un se l it was de te rm in ed th at th e Defen da nt was no t ha ll uc in at in g bu t he was ex pe rie nc i n g fla sh ba ck s th us sh e di d no t reque st a co m pe te nc y
22 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 22 of 40he ari ng at th at po in t. Howev er, Ms
. St it t te st ifi ed th at in hi nd si gh t s he wou ldha ve reque st eda co m pe te nc y he ari ng . Hin ds ig ht an al y si s of wha t act io ns sh ou ld ha ve be en ta ke n is no t th e ap pr op ria te st an da rdin de te rm in in g d efi ci en cy , th e que st io n res ts on wha t th e ci rcu m st an ce s w e r e at th e ti m e th at th e pa rti cu la r de ci si on was m ad e. The de ci si on no t to se e k a co m pe te nc y ev al ua t i o n a t th e ti m e of th e al le ge d ha ll uc in at io n was ba se d on co un se ls ’ in te ract io n wit h th e Defen da nt , as dis cu sse d pr ev iou sly , hi s de m ean or rem ai ne d co ns ta nt th ro ugho ut th e rep res en ta ti on , di sc us si on s wit h th e Defen da nt fo ll owi ng th e al le ge d hal lu ci na ti on s, and ap pr ox im at el y 50 y ears of c om bi ne d li ti ga ti on ex p e r i en ce. The refo re, th e Co urt fin ds co un se ls ’ de ci si on no t to reque st a co m pe te nc y he ari n g was ba se d on reas on edpro fes si on al jud gm en t. Mo reo ve r, th e Defen da n t ha s fai le d to es tabl is h th at bu t fo r co un se l’s al le ge d de f

i ci en t co nduc t th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th e res ul ts wou ldha ve di ffer ed
. In fact , J us ti ce Bel l te st ifi ed th at ha vi ng de al t wit h t h e Defen da nt in juv en il e co urt an d th ro ug h th e pr oc es s he m ad e t h e i n f orm ed de ci si on th e Defen da nt was n o t ha ll uc in at in g bu t di sturbe d by fla sh ba ck s of wha t happ en ed du rin g th e vi ct im ’s m ur de r. C o ns eque nt ly, th is cl ai m is de ni ed
. (Ci ta ti on s o m it te d.) Whi le po st co nv ic ti on co un se l h as pro vi de d ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n, i nc lu di ng Sti tt ’s tes ti m on y th atsh e was co nc ern edab ou t Lawre nc e’s co m pe te nc y all alo ng an d t ha t s he reg ret te d h er d eci si onno t t o re qu es t a c om pe te nc y he ari ng , su ch hi nd si gh t d oubt s ar e in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w def ic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. Lawren ce h as fai le d t o s ho w any erro r. A com pl et e rev ie w of t he reco rd , in cl ud in g b ot h t he ev id en ce s ho wn atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d t he tes ti m on y

at tria l s ho w th atitwas d iff ic ul t t o d et erm in e whe th er Lawren ce was tru ly exp eri en ci ng ha ll uc in at io ns or wh ethe r he was b ot he redby the po rti on s o f th e ev id en ce wh ic h wer e b ei ng pr es en te d. Lawre nc e was ask eddi rect ly abo utth is , andhi s co un se l co ns ul te d wi th hi m

at t he ti m e h e was rep orti ng th es e p ro bl em s. St it t

23 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 23 of 40ne ve r st at edth atth e rep orte d h al lu ci na ti on s m ad e h er que st io n

Lawren ce’s co m

pe te nc y . Ins te ad , cou ns el ass ert edth atLawren ce’s be ha vi ordi d n otch an ge fro m th e in it ia l t im e whe n two ex pe rts fou nd hi m co m pe te ntun ti l t he tri al was c om pl et ed . Alth ou gh bo th Sti ttan d Kil la m ha d t he op po rtu ni ty to t al k wi th th ei r cl ie ntimm ed ia te ly after th e in ci de nt s, t he po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng di d n otrev eal an y ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n wh ic h wo ul d h av e co m pe ll edco un se l t o se eka co m

pe te nc y he ari ng . Fin al ly, Dep ut y Jarvi s t es ti fie d dur in g th e h eari ng as t o h is co nv ers at io n wi th Lawren ce i m m ed ia te ly after Lawren ce re po rte d h is pro bl em s. Whil e Dep ut y Jarvi s n ot edth at Lawren ce was m or e ups etth an he ha d e ve r se en hi m , Lawren ce t ol d hi m th athe di d n otli ke he ari ng th e tape s b ecau se itsee m edli ke th e cri m e was happ en in g a ll ov er ag ai n -- si m il ar t o s ta te m en ts th athe m ad e o n the reco rdto th e jud ge . Bas edon th e ab ov e, th ere i s co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he po st co nv ic ti onco urt’s factua l fi nd in gs , andLawren ce h as no t s ho wn tha t t he tri al co urt’s co nc lu si on s o f la w are erro ne ou s. Lawren ce II , 96 9 S o. 2 d a t 3 13 -1 4. C. On Fe brua ry

20 , 20 08 , Lawren ce fi le d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, rai si ng ni ne cl ai m s. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he pe ti ti on on each of t he m in a de ta il edord er. The co urt b eg anby den y in g Lawre nc e’s reque stforanev id en ti ary he ari ng ba se d
on 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(2 ), ob se rv in g t ha t Lawre nc e h adrece iv eda fu ll
ev id en ti ary he ari ng in st at e co urt. Mo stsi gn ifi can t fo r ou r pu rp os es is th e d is tri ctco urt’s re so lu ti on of Lawren ce’s s ub st an ti ve co m pe te nc y cla im , whi ch was ra is edfor th e fi rs t t im e in
24 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 24 of 40hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti onan d wh ic h t he di stric t co urt ad dr es se d o n t he m eri ts .

The di st ric t co urt s umm ari zedat l en gt h t he gu il ty ple a an d p en al ty pha se pr oc eed in gs an d t he tes ti m on y tak enfro m

th e st at e p os tc on vi ct io n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t, t ak in g a ll of t he ev id en ce as a who le , Lawren ce “ was co m

pe te ntat t he ti m e h e en te redhi s p le a.” The co urt co nc lu de d th atwhi le cred ib le m ed ic al ev id en ce was pre se nt edth atLawren ce s uf fers fro m
sc hi zo ph ren ia , th is di ag no si s al on e was no t en ou gh to fin d t ha t t he pe ti ti on er was in co m pe te ntat t he ti m e h e en te redhi s p le a. The di stric t co urt d ecl in edto is su e a Ce rti fic at e o f App eal ab il it y (“ COA”). W e is su eda COA, ho wev er, o n t wo cl ai m s: whet he r co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to reque sta co m

pe te nc y he ari ng du rin g t he pe na lt y ph as e; an d wh ethe r Lawren ce was in factin co m pe te ntat t he ti m e h e en te reda pl ea o f gu il ty or atth e ti m e o f th e p en al ty pha se . II . Lawren ce fi le d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on aft er t he 19 96 effe ct iv e d at e o f th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct(“ AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4,
an d, t he refo re, AEDPA go ve rn s t he pe ti ti on an d t he sco pe of o urrev ie w. Penry v. Jo hn so n, 5 32 U.S. 78 2, 7 92 (20 01 ). Und er AEDPA, when th e st at e co urt h as ad jud ic at edth e p et it io ne r’s cl ai m onth e m eri ts , a fed eral co urt m ay no t g ran t
25 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 25 of 40habe as rel ie f un le ss th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on was “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edan

un 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 S ta te s,” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ), or“ was ba se d o n a n
un 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 t he St at e co urt p ro ceed in g,” id . § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). A st at e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs are pr es um edco rrec t u nl es s re bu tt edby clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Id . § 2 25 4( e). AEDPA “ im

po se s a h ig hl y

de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardforev al ua ti ng st at e co urt
ru li ng s” an d “ de m an ds th atst at e-co urt d eci si on s b e g iv en th e b en efi t o f th e do ub t.” Re ni co v. Let t, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 85 5, 1 86 2 (2 01 0) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d) . “ A st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t a c la im lac ks m eri t p recl ud es fed eral habe as rel ie f so lo ng as f ai rm in de d ju ris ts co ul d d is ag ree o n t he co rrec tn es s o f th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on .” Harri ng to n v . Ric ht er, 1 31 S. Ct. 7 70 , 78 6 (2 01 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io ns of l aw an d m ix ed qu es ti on s o f la w andfact , bu t re vi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar
erro r. See Sp en cer v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 60 9 F .3d11 70 , 11 77 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). As fo r th e d is tri ctco urt’s co m pe te nc y fin di ng , we rev ie w a di stric t co urt’s de te rm in at io n o f “ co m

pe te nc y to st an d t ria l as a fact fin di ng subjec t t o re ve rs al
on ly for cl ear e rro r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Izqui erd o, 4 48 F.3d12 69 , 12 76 (11 th Cir
. 26 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 26 of 4020 06 ); Un it edSta te s v . Hog an , 98 6 F .2d13 64 , 13 71 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Mo reo ve r, 2 in co ns id eri ng onfed eral habe as a si m il ar co m pe te nc y cla im to th e o ne rai se d b y Lawren ce i n t hi s ca se , we hav e h el d t ha t “ [a] di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n tha t th ere i s i ns uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o g en erat e a s ub st an ti al an d l eg it im at e d oubtas t o a pe ti ti on er’s co m

pe te nc e to st an d t ria l i s re vi ewedforcle ar erro r.” Med in a v . Si ng le ta ry , 59 F.3d10 95 , 11 06 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). A. To s uc ceedon hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m , Lawren ce m us t s ho w bo th de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce an d p reju di ce: he m us t es tabl is h b ot h t ha t “ co un se l’s rep res en ta ti on fel l b el ow an ob jecti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss ,” an d t ha t “ th ere is a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t of th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , 69 4;
acco rdW ig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 21 (20 03 ); Da rd env. Wain wrig ht , 47 7
One year

prior to Hog an, a pa

nel of this Court in J ames v. Sing letary , 957 F.2d 1562, 2 1574 n.18 (11th Cir. 1992), said without citation that “[a]s competency to stand trial constitutes a mix ed question of law

and fa ct, this finding [by a state c ourt] would, of course, not have bee n entitled to a pre sumption of corre ctness.” H oweve r, in J ames ther e neve r wa s a state c ourt findingof compe tency , as indicate d by the pane l’s use of the w ord “w ould,” and a s the text prec edingthe footnote made clea r. I d. at 1574 (“ [N] o state cour t has found petitioner to have been c ompetent to stand trial.”) . Thus, the pane l’s footnote wa s opining on the standa rd of revie w for a

n issue not before it. The later H og an pane l corre ctly rec og nized the J ames footnote as dicta a nd expressly

enter ed a holdingto the contra ry . See Hog an, 986 F .2d at 1372 (“ We hold that a district cour

t’s deter mination that a defe ndant is competent to stand trial is not revie wed de novo, it is notrevie wed with a ha rd look, it is not reviewed unde r any thing other

than a c lear ly err oneous standar d.”). 27

Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 27 of 40U.S. 16 8, 1 84 (19 86 ).

Mo reo ve r, we are n otap pl y in g S tri ck la ndde no vo , bu t ra th er t hr ou gh th e ad di ti on al pri sm

of AEDPA d efer en ce. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). As the Supr em e Co urt h as no te d, “ [t]he st an da rd s cr eat edby Stri ck la ndan d § 22 54 (d ) are bo th hi gh ly defer en ti al , andwhen th e two ap pl y in tan de m , rev ie w is do ub ly so.” Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. Thu s, u nd er t hi s d oubl y

de fere nt ia l s ta nd ard , “ [t]he pi vo ta l que st io n i s wh ethe r th e st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e St ric kl an d s ta nd ardwas u nr eas on ab le .” Id . at 7 85 (“ A st at e co urt m

us t b e g ran te d ade fere nc e an d l at itud e th atare n otin op erat io n whe n the cas e in vo lv es rev ie w un de r th e Stric kl an d s ta nd ardit se lf.” ). Andif, ata
m in im um , fai rm in de d juris ts co ul d d is ag ree o n t he co rrec tn es s o f th e st at e co urt’s de ci si on , th e st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f St ric kl an d was no t u nr eas on ab le , and AEDPA prec lu de s t he gra ntof h ab eas rel ie f. Id. at78 6. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d et erm in edth atLawren ce fa il edto est ab li sh ei th er d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e. On t he pe rfo rm an ce p ro ng , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad op te d t he po st co nv ic ti on tri al co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t t he de ci si on no t t o re qu es t a c om pe te nc y he ari ng was wi th in th e rea so ne d p ro fes si on al jud gm en t o f co un se l. Lawren ce II , 96 9 S o. 2 d a t 3 13 -1 4. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re vi ewedth e rec or d e vi de nc e an d d et erm in edth atth e ci rcu m st an ces at t he
28 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 28 of 40ti m e o f th e two in ci de nt s atth e p en al ty pha se di d n otco m pe l co un se l t o s eeka
co m pe te nc y he ari ng . There is co ns id erab le reco rdev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th is de te rm in at io n. Fo r st art ers , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad op te d t he st at e p os tc on vi ct io n
co urt’s d efer en ce t o t he ap pr ox im at el y 50 y ears of c om

bi ne d l it ig at io n e xp eri en ce be twee n Ki ll am

an d S ti tt . Id. at31 4. Itwas n otun reas on ab le to do so . As th is Co urt h as ob se rv edinev al ua ti ng Str ic kl an d c la im s, “ [w]henco urts are ex am in in g th e p erfo rm an ce o f an ex pe rie nc edtri al co un se l, t he pre su m pt io n t ha t h is co nduc t
was reas on ab le is ev en st ro ng er.” Ch an dl er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 18 F.3d13 05 , 13 16 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (en banc ); a cco rdid . at 1 31 6 n .18 (“ W e acc ep t t ha t ev en th e v ery be stlawyer cou ldha ve a ba d d ay . . . . Our p oi ntis a sm al l o ne : Ex pe rie nc e is du e
so m e res pe ct .”). Lawren ce re li es he av il y

onth e p os tc on vi ct io n t es ti m on y of t ria l co un se l St it t, wh o t es ti fie d tha t i n h in ds ig htsh e erre d b y no t re qu es ti ng a co m

pe te nc y
ev al ua ti onaft er Lawren ce re po rte d fl as hb ack s dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt was no t u nr eas on ab le in de te rm in in g tha t St it t’s h in ds ig ht
ev al ua ti onof h er o wn p erfo rm an ce was in si gn ifi can t. Thi s C ou rt h as rep eat ed ly
ex pl ai ne d t ha t b ecau se th e St ric kl an d s ta nd ardis anob jecti ve on e, se e Dard en , 47 7 U.S. at18 7; Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , cou ns el ’s own ad m is si on of d efi ci en t
29 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 29 of 40pe rfo rm an ce i n h in ds ig htis no t t o b e affo rd edm uc h, i f an y , weig ht . See Ch an dl er, 21 8 F .3dat 1 31 5 n .16 (“ Bec au se th e st an da rdis anob jecti ve on e, th attri al co un se l (ata po st -co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng ) ad m it s t ha t h is pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntm at te rs li tt le .”); Tarv er v . Hop pe r, 16 9 F .3d71 0, 7 16 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ); Atk in s v . Sin gl et ary, 96 5 F .2d95 2, 9 60 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Inth e se co ndpl ace, t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt cr ed it edKil la m ’s tes ti m on y th atba se d o n h is co nv ers at io ns wit h Lawre nc e an d h is ex pe rie nc e, he di d n otth in k Lawren ce was ha vi ng a “ co m pe te nc y pro bl em ”; rat he r, inKil la m ’s vi ew Lawren ce

“ was ha vi ng a bo utwit h h is co ns ci en ce” a ndth eref or e th ere was no ne edto reque sta co m

pe te nc y he ari ng . Lawrenc e II, 9 69 So . 2dat 3 13 . Mor eo ve r, whi le St it t d idsay tha t i n h in ds ig htsh e wou ldha ve reque st eda co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , sh e al so tes ti fie d t ha t wh en Lawren ce re tu rn edfro m th e fi rs t o f th e p en al ty pha se in ci de nt s s he di d n otbe li ev e h e was ha ll uc in at in g. No tabl y , nei th er co un se l te st ifi edat t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng , in word s o r subs ta nc e, th atLawren ce was
ev er u nabl e to co m

m un ic at e wit h t he m

or a ss is t t he m

in hi s d efen se du rin g the ir le ng th y rep res en ta ti on of h im
. Thi rd , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt al so no te d t ha t two ex pe rts fou nd Lawren ce co m

pe te ntinOcto be r 19 98 an d t ha t b ot h S ti ttan d Ki ll am tes ti fie d t ha t

“ Lawren ce’s b eh av io r di d n otch an ge fro m th e in it ia l t im e whe n t wo ex pe rts fou nd
30 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 30 of 40hi m

co m pe te ntun ti l t he tri al was c om pl et ed .” Id . at 3 14 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt al so cred it edth e p os tc on vi ct io n t es ti m on y of t he tri al jud ge , who co nduc te d a le ng th y co ll oq uy with co un se l an d Lawre nc e atth e ti m e o f th e rep orte d ha ll uc in at io ns an d a ve rredth athe “ m ad e th e in fo rm edde ci si on [th at ] th e Defen da ntwas n otha ll uc in at in g b ut[was ] di sturbe d b y fla sh ba ck s o f wha t happ en eddu rin g t he vi ct im ’s m ur de r.” Id . The co urt fu rth er cr ed it edth e
ev id en ti ary he ari ng tes ti m on y of Off ic er J arv is as c on si st en t wi th th e o n- th ereco rdst at em en ts m ad e b y Lawren ce t o the tri al jud ge th atLawren ce d idno t l ik e he ari ng th e tape s b ecau se th ey m ad e itsee m

li ke th e cri m e was happ en in g a ll ov er ag ai n. Id . It was no t u nr eas on ab le forth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o c red itall of th is tes ti m on y , whi ch was a ccu rat el y dra wn fr om

th e rec or d a ndall of wh ic h po in te d t owa rdth e co nc lu si on th atLawren ce was co m pe te ntto pro ceeddu rin g t he pe na lty ph as e. Insh ort, t he reco rdde m on st rat es th atth e st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on
on th e p erfo rm an ce p ro ng of S tri ck la nd-- th atco un se l’s d eci si on no t t o re qu es t a
co m pe te nc y he ari ng un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces refl ect edreas on edpro fes si on al jud gm en t, an d, t he refo re, d idno t fa ll be lo w an o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e st an da rdof pe rfo rm an ce -- was n otanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f St ric kl an d. As fo r pr ejud ic e, in ord er t o s uc ceedon hi s St ric kl an d c la im be fo re t he st at e po st co nv ic ti onco urt Lawre nc e wou ldha ve ha d t o s ho w a reas on ab le pro babi li ty
31 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 31 of 40th atth e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldha ve be en di ffer en t b utforth e al le ge d

de fic ie nc y

in co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 94 . In o th er wo rd s, Lawren ce was requi redto sh ow t ha t t he re was a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t h e
wou ldha ve rece iv eda co m pe te nc y he ari ng an d b een fou ndin co m pe te ntha d
co un se l re qu es te d t he he ari ng . Bas edon m

uc h o f th e sa m e co rp us of e vi de nc e, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Lawre nc e fai le d t o s ho w Stri ck la ndpre jud ic e was no t
un reas on ab le . At le as t t hr ee b as ic bl oc ks of r eco rdev id en ce s up po rt the
reas on ab le ne ss of t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n. Fi rs t, i n Oct ob er 19 98 , app ro xi m at el y

17 m on th s b efo re t he gu il ty ple a an d p en al ty pha se , Lawren ce was ev al ua te d fo r co m pe te nc y by two co urt-app oi nt edex pe rts , Dr. Lars on an d Dr. Bi ng ha m , bo th of wh om fou ndLawren ce t o b e co m pe te nt . Whi le Lawren ce t rie s t o m in im iz e th e im pa ctof t he se ev al ua ti on s b y po in ti ng ou t t ha t th ey to okpl ace o ve r a y ear p rio r to th e p ro ceed in gs at i ss ue , th es e co m pe te nc y
ev al ua ti on s ar e furth er co nn ect edto Lawren ce’s co m pe te nc y du rin g t he Marc h 20 00 pro ceed in gs by the po st co nv ic ti on tes ti m on y of Ki ll am

an d S ti tt . Bot h te st ifi edth atLawren ce’s b eh av io r rem ai ne d c on si st en t t hr ou gh ou t the ir rep res en ta ti on of h im

-- whi ch in Sti tt ’s cas e p re-d at edth e Oct ob er 1 99 8
ev al ua ti on s. Si m il arl y , th e tr ia l ju dg e te st ifi edth athe ha d p rio r en co un te rs wit h
32 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 32 of 40Lawren ce i n t he juv en il e syst em an d tha t h e d idno t o bs erv e an y di ffer en ces in Lawren ce’s b eh av io r be twee n t he se earl ie r de al in gs an d t he ti m e o f th e tr ia l i n t hi s
cas e. Kil la m

fur th er t es ti fie d t ha t h e res pe ct edth e o pi ni on of Dr. Lar so n a ndha d
no reas on to qu es ti on itan d t ha t, i n Ki ll am ’s vi ew, th e que st io n o f Lawren ce’s
co m pe te nc y ha d a lre ady

be enres ol ve d b y

th e ti m e o f th e March 20 00 pro ceed in gs . The sec on d b lo ckof e vi de nc e is th e rec or d o f wha t ac tu al ly tran sp ire d a t t he gu il ty ple a an d t he pe na lt y ph as e. The t ria l ju dg e en ga ge d i n a n e xt en si ve pl ea
co ll oq uy with bo th Lawren ce an d c ou ns el , reco gn iz in g t ha t Lawre nc e’s m en ta l cap aci ty w as a se rio us is su e an d a sk in g a ndrep hr as in g fu nd am en ta l que st io ns
se ve ral ti m es to co nf

irm th atLawren ce u nd ers to odth e n atur e o f th e p ro ceed in gs
an d t ha t t he de ci si on to pl eadgu il ty w as Lawren ce’s. W hi le th e st at e tr ia l co urt 3 di d n otm ak e a s pe ci fic co m pe te nc y fin di ng , th e tr ia l co urt’s d et ai le d c ol lo qu y , Lawren ce’s rat io na l an d c on si st en t re sp on se s t o t he tri al co urt’s que st io ns , andth e st at e tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Lawre nc e’s gu il ty ple a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry
no ne th el es s s up po rt t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on
on Str ic kl an d p reju di ce. Mo reo ve r, th e tr ia l co urt al so en ga ge d i n e xt en si ve
Indeed, in this appe al L awr ence does not, and c annot, cha lleng e the F lorida Supreme 3 Court’s deter

mination that his guilty

plea wa s knowingand voluntary , beca use that sepa

rate claim of L awr ence ’s fe dera l habea s petition was alre ady resolved a g ainst him, and is not included in the Certificate of Appe alability to this C ourt. See Murr ay v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (“ [I ]n an appea l broug ht by an unsucc essful habe as petitioner, a ppellate revie w is limi ted to the issues specif ied in the COA.”)
.

33 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 33 of 40co ll oq ui es wit h Lawre nc e atth e ti m e o f th e two in ci de nt s dur in g t he pe na lt y

ph as e. He ul ti m at el y

fou ndba se d o n Lawre nc e’s res po ns es du rin g the sec on d in ci de ntth atLawren ce fr eel y , kn owi ng ly, an d v ol un taril y waiv edhi s ri gh t t o b e pr es en t wh il e Lawren ce’s t ap e-re co rd edst at em en ts to law en fo rcem en t wer e b ei ng pl ay edto th e jury. The th irdbl oc k o f rec or d e vi de nc e th atsupp orts th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on on Str ic kl an d p reju di ce i s fo un d i n the st at e po st co nv ic ti onev id en ti ary he ari ng in 20 05 , in pa rti cu la r th e fi nd in g t ha t Lawre nc e
was co m pe te ntto pro ceedin po st co nv ic ti on . Whi le th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng
oc cu rredfiv e y ears aft er the pe na lt y ph as e, an d t he refo re t he st at e p os tc on vi ct io n
co urt’s fi nd in g i s h ard ly dis po si ti ve ab ou t Lawre nc e’s co m pe te nc y ba ckin Marc h of 20 00 , itis no ne th el es s p ro ba ti ve forsev eral reas on s. Mo stim po rta nt ly, th e st at e co urt co ns id eredth e ex acttes ti m on y onwhi ch Lawren ce n ow s eek s t o re ly, in pa rti cu la r th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng tes ti m on y of Dr. Woo d a ndDr. Cro wn, an d ch os e to in st eadcred itth e co nt rary repo rt o f Dr. Gil gu n, a c ou rt- ap po in te d e xp ert who ev al ua te d Lawre nc e in 20 05 an d fo un d t ha t Lawre nc e was m al in ge rin g a nd
was co m pe te ntto pro ceedin po st co nv ic ti on . It i s al so no tabl e th atth e st at e co urt
reco gn iz edth e d is ti nc ti on be twee n h av in g alo ng -s tand in g m en ta l d is or de r an d be in g l eg al ly com

pe te nt . The s ta te po st co nv ic ti on co urt fo un d t ha t
34 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 34 of 40no twi th st an di ng Lawren ce’s m en ta l i ll ne ss , Lawren ce was ab le to ass is t h is

po st co nv ic ti onco un se l an d c omm un ic at e wit h c ou ns el reg ard in g t he pro ceed in gs fiv e y ears earl ie r. Bas edpri m ari ly on t he se di st in ctcat eg or ie s o f ov erl ap pi ng ev id en ce, t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Lawre nc e fai le d t o s ho w a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th athe wou ldha ve be en fou ndin co m pe te ntha d c ou ns el reque st edan
ev id en ti ary he ari ng was n otanun reas on ab le on e. Acco rd in gl y , AEDPA bars rel ie f on Lawren ce’s St ric kl an d c la im . Whi le Lawren ce was ab le du rin g t he st at e po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs to pre se ntm ed ic al ex pe rts who tes ti fie d t ha t Lawre nc e
was no t co m

pe te ntdu rin g t he Marc h 2 00 0 p ro ceed in gs , itis no tabl e th atne it he r Dr. W oo d n orDr. Cro wn, b ot h o f who m tes ti fie d dur in g t he pe na lty ph as e it se lf,
m en ti on edin th ei r pe na lt y ph as e te st im on y

or o th erwi se bro ug htto th e at te nt io n o f th e tr ia l co urt atth atti m e an y co nc ern s ab ou t Lawre nc e’s co m pe te nc y . Mor eo ve r, itis als o n ot ab le th atth e st at e p os tc on vi ct io n c ou rt c red it edot he r ex pe rts ov er Drs. Woo d a ndCro wn i n fi nd in g Lawre nc e co m pe te ntto pro ceedin20 05 . Taki ng th e st at e co urt re co rdas awho le , andex am in in g i t thr ou gh th e p ris m of d oubl e de fere nc e, th e n ew te st im on y ad du cedat the po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng on whi chLawren ce re li es is in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s de te rm in at io n was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f St ric kl an d, o r, in othe r wor ds , 35 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 35 of 40th atno fai rm in de d ju ris t co ul d re ach th e co nc lu si on th ata un an im ou s Flo rid a 4 Supr em e Co urt re ach edhe re. Lawren ce II, 9 69 So . 2dat 3 15
. B. Lawren ce’s s eco ndcla im is th athe was n otin factco m pe te ntto en te r a gu il ty ple a o r to st an d t ria l dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e, an d t he refo re t ha t t he pr oc eed in gs vi ol at edhi s s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s ri gh ts un de r th e Si xt h a nd Fo urte en th Am en dm en ts . The Supr em e Co urt p rece de ntth atform s the ba si s fo r th is cla im is fou ndin Dus ky v. Uni te d S ta te s, 3 62 U.S. 40 2 (1 96 0) . There , th e Supr em e Co urt s etfor th a two -p ro ng edst an da rdforde te rm in in g l eg al
co m pe te nc y : “ [T]he te stm

us t b e whe th er [t he de fen da nt ] ha s s uf fic ie ntpre se nt ab il it y to co ns ul t wi th hi s l awy er wi th a reas on ab le de gr ee o f rat io na l
un de rs ta nd in g -- an d wh ethe r he ha s a r at io na l as well as f actua l u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im .” 36 2 U.S. at40 2 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. 5 As an in it ia l m at te r, th e St at e arg ue s t ha t we s ho ul d t reatth is Dus ky clai m
as be in g p ro cedur al ly defau lt edbe cau se itwas n ev er ra is edin th e st at e co urts , and

J ustice B ell, as the trial judg e and one of the postconviction witnesses in this case , was 4 rec used. L awr ence I I , 969 So. 2d at 315. A substantive compete ncy claim of the kind L awr ence raises he re is ofte n ref err ed to as 5 a Dusky claim, in contra st to a proce dural c ompetency claim that the trial c ourt committed err or by not orderinga compe tency hearing, which is often re fer red to a s a Pate c laim. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966).
36

Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 36 of 40be cau se th ere i s n o b as is forcat eg or ic al ly excl ud in g s ub st an ti ve co m pe te nc y cl ai m s fr om

AEDPA’ s ex haus ti on requi rem en t, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b )(1 )(A) (p ro vi di ng th atanap pl ic at io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us sh al l n otbe gra nt edun le ss

“ th e ap pl ic an t h as ex haus te d t he rem ed ie s av ai labl e in th e co urts of the Sta te ”). W e h av e b ot h p re- andpo st -AEDPA pre ced en t, h owe ve r, ho ld in g tha t s ub st an ti ve
co m pe te nc y cla im s g en eral ly cann otbe pro cedur al ly defau lt ed . See Par do v. Sec’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 58 7 F .3d10 93 , 11 01 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); Wrig htv. Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 27 8 F .3d12 45 , 12 58 -5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (“ The di stric t
co urt’s ru li ng th atWrig htha d p ro cedur al ly defau lt edhi s s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s
m en ta l co m

pe te nc y cla im is co nt rary to t he law o f th is cir cu itth atsu ch cla im s ge ne ral ly cann otbe de fau lt ed .” (ci ti ng Jo hn st on v. Si ng le ta ry , 16 2 F .3d63 0, 6 37 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ; M ed in a v . Sin gl et ary, 59 F.3d10 95 , 11 07 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ); Ada m s v . W ai nwr ig ht , 76 4 F .2d13 56 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 85 )). The Sta te ’s di sa gr eem en t wi th th is pre ced en t i s o f no m om en t, b ecau se we are b ou ndby the ho ld in gs of o urpri orpane ls . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, 1 22 F.3d13 55 , 13 59 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ Und er t he pri orpa ne l p rece de ntrul e, we are b ou ndby earli er p an el ho ld in gs . . . un le ss an d u nt il th ey are o ve rru le d e n b an c o r by the Supr em e Co urt.”) ; s ee al so Wrig ht , 27 8 F .3dat 1 25 9 (“ Bo un d a s we a re t o fo ll ow p rio r pa ne l p rece de nt , we con cl ud e th atWrig ht ’s subs tant iv e due pro ces s cl ai m rel at in g 37 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 37 of 40to m en ta l co m pe te nc y is no t p ro cedur al ly barre d, an d we wi ll ad dr es s i ts m eri ts .”). Thu s, jus t l ik e th e d is tri ctco urt, we ad dr es s d e n ov o Lawre nc e’s Dus ky clai m on th e m eri ts an d “ rev ie w itwit ho utan y § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) de fere nc e, be cau se th ere i s n o st at e co urt d eci si on on th e m eri ts ” to whi chwe m ay de fer. Wrig ht , 27 8 F .3dat 12 59
. Inad va nc in g h is subs ta nt iv e co m pe te nc y cla im , Lawren ce “ is en ti tl edto no pr es um pt io n o f in co m

pe te nc y an d m us t d em on st rat e h is
. . . in co m pe te nc y by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.” J am es v. Si ng le ta ry , 95 7 F .2d15 62 , 15 71 (11 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Rel at ed ly, we ha ve sai d t ha t i n o rd er t o b e en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng on a subs ta nt iv e co m pe te nc y cla im , whi chLawren ce s eek s h ere, a pe ti ti on er m

us t p res en t “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce” t ha t cr eat es a “ real , subs ta nt ia l, an d l eg it im at e d oubt ” as to hi s co m pe te nc e. Id . at 1 57 3; acco rd Med in a, 59 F.3dat 1 10 6; Cardv. Si ng le ta ry , 98 1 F .2d48 1, 4 84 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (“ The st an dardof p ro of

is hi gh . The fac ts m

us t p os it iv el y , un equi vo cal ly and cl earl y ge ne rat e th e le gi ti m at e d oubt .” (al te rat io ns an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). Lawren ce h as no t m etth athi gh bu rd en , esp eci al ly becau se he m us t s ho w th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Lawre nc e was co m pe te ntwas n otjus t wro ng , bu t cl earl y

erro ne ou s. See Med in a, 59 F.3dat 1 10 6. The s ub st an ti al co rp us of
ev id en ce s up po rti ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s co m pe te nc y fin di ng is lar ge ly the same as 38 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 38 of 40th e rec or d e vi de nc e, de sc rib edin de ta il supr a, supp orti ng th e Fl or id a Supr em e

Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Lawre nc e fai le d t o e st ab li sh eithe r co un se ls ’ de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e u nd er Stric kl an d. The Octo be r 19 98 co m pe te nc y
ev al ua ti on s, t he trans cri pt s t ak en fro m (an d t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng tes ti m on y reg ard in g) th e Ma rch 20 00 gu il ty ple a an d p en al ty pha se pro ceed in gs , andth e st at e co urt’s 2 00 5 c om

pe te nc y fin di ng cred it in g t he co urt-app oi nt edex pe rts who fo un d Lawre nc e co m

pe te ntan d re po rte d m al in ge rin g o ve r Lawren ce’s ex pe rts all
supp ort t he di st ric t co urt’s co m pe te nc y de te rm in at io n. Norwas t he di st ric t co urt’s re li an ce o n o ur de ci si on in Wrig htm is pl aced
. Inad dr es si ng de no vo th e m eri ts of asubs ta nt iv e co m pe te nc y cla im , th e p an el in Wrig htde te rm in edth ata di ag no si s o f ch ro ni c sc hi zo ph ren ia , onit s o wn, was “ no t
en ou gh to crea te a real , subs ta nt ia l, an d l eg it im at e d oubtas t o wh ethe r [t he pe ti ti on er] was co m

pe te ntto st an d t ria l.” Id . at 1 25 9. The pa ne l i n Wrig ht rei te rat edth e law of t hi s C irc ui t t ha t “ ‘[n]ot e ve ry m an ife st at io n o f m en ta l i ll ne ss de m on st rat es in co m

pe te nc e to st an d t ria l; rat he r, th e ev id en ce m us t i nd ic at e a pr es en t i nabi li ty to as si stco un se l o r un de rs ta ndth e ch arg es .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Med in a, 59 F.3dat 1 10 7 (e m ph as is ad de d) ); a cco rdMed in a, 59 F.3dat 1 10 7 (“ [N]eith er l ow i nt el li ge nc e, m en ta l d efi ci en cy , no r bi zarr e, vo la ti le , andirr at io na l be ha vi orcan be equa te d wi th m en ta l i nc om pe te nc e to st an d t ria l.”) . Mor eo ve r, 39 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 39 of 40un li ke th is cas e, th e p et it io ne r in Wrig htha d a ctua ll y be enfou ndin co m

pe te nton
m ul ti pl e o ccas io ns , on ce s ev en te en y ears be fo re t ria l an d a no th er t im e se ve n years
an d e ig htm on th s af

te r tr ia l, b ot h o f whi ch we co ns id eredrel ev an t b utno t
su ffi ci en t t o c ou nt er t he ev id en ce o f Wrig ht ’s com pe te nc e atth e ti m e o f tr ia l. Wrig ht , 27 8 F .3dat 1 25 9. Thus , whi le th e d is tri ctco urt i n t hi s ca se reco gn iz ed th at“ cred ib le m ed ic al ev id en ce was pre se nt edth atPet it io ne r pr ob ab ly suf fers fro m sch iz op hr en ia ,” it s co nc lu si on th at“ th is di ag no si s al on e is no t en ou gh to
co nv in ce t hi s co urt t ha t Pe ti ti on er was in co m pe te ntat t he ti m e th athe en te redhi s pl ea” wa s fu ll y

co ns on an t wi th ou r pr eced en t an d was supp orte d b y th e rec or d a s a who le . In s ho rt, t he re i s n o b as is on th is reco rdto co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct
co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Lawre nc e was co m pe te ntwas c le arl y

erro ne ou s. Th us , Lawren ce i s n oten ti tl edto rel ie f on th e m eri ts of h is subs ta nt iv e co m pe te nc y cl ai m . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

40 Case: 10-13862 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 40 of 40