## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1156 S CO TT J. R EVER, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. G E RA RDO A CE VE DO, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07 CV1265

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judg e.

A RG UE D A UGUS T 4, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 4, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, K ANN E , an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM
. Sc ot t R ev er , an Il lin oi s inm at e, ap p ea ls from the d en ialof his p e t it ion for a w rit of habea s corpu s . Af t e r he wa s c ha r g e d wi th 1 5 c o un t s r e l a t e d t o the k i dn ap and rape ofhi s e x-g i rl f ri end, Reve r w as tw ice f ound un fi t f ortr i al

— th e s e c o n d fi n d i n gc a me a ft e r a s ui c i de a t t e mpt

— an d rem an ded to a s ta te
- r un f aci l i ty f ortrea tm ent. W hen offi ci al s a t the f aci l i ty i ssued a repor tfi nd i ngh i m co mpe t e ntt o s t a nd t r i a l, h i s l a wyer2 N o. 09

- 1156 stipu lated to his com p eten ce d esp ite t he l aw yer’s p rofessed fai lure to un d erstan d th e rep ort. T h e c o urt accepte d the s ti pu l ati on and Reve r w ent t o tr i alwitho ut a fi tness hear i ng. H e was co nvi c te d o n 11 o fthe 15 counts an d se n te n c ed to 33 ye ar s. Inan u n su c c es sfu l ap p ea l, Rever ’ s co unsel di d not m enti on t h e lack ofa fi tness he aring. I n p ost-con victio n p roceed ings, the trialcou rt ac k no wl edg ed th ati t sh o ul d ha ve he l d a full h ea r i ng o n Re ve r ’ s fi tn es s des pi te co uns el ’ s st i pul at i o n, butf o und th at co u n se l’s fa ilu re to p u rs u e t h e is su e w as n ot p rej u d ici al

. A fterthe app ellat e co urt affi rm ed and the s tat e su p re m e c ou rtd en ied h is p et itio n for le a v e t o a p p ea l, R ever fi led h is fed eral petition, w h ich th e d istri ct cou rt den i ed. W e affi r m becau se Re ve r f ai l ed to r eb utthe state tri al court’s factu al find ing tha t he p resen ted i ns uffi ci ent e vi dence to sho w thatappel l ate c ou n sel’ s co nd uct p r ej u d i c e d h i m.

I . B AC KGR OUND On A p ril 29 , 1 99 9, Re ve r ’ s ex - g i r l f r i en d a nd he r c ur r en t boy f ri end hear d a window br eaki n her apar tm ent. T hey w ent o utsi de and saw Rever. A ftera str uggl e, Reve r gr abbed his ex -gi rl f ri end and d ra gge d her, atkni f epoi nt, to hi s ca r . He dr o ve t o a r ur ala r ea w her e he b ea t hi s ex gi rl f riend, tor e o ffhercl othi ng, and ra ped her. Reve r w as charg ed w i th fi ftee n co unts, i ncl ud i ng two co unts o f agg ra vate d kid napp i ng, se ven co unts o fag gr avat ed cri m i nal se xual ass aul t, and three counts o fag gr avat ed batt er y. B efo re R ev er co u ld b e t rie d , D r. R ob er t C h ap m an , a f or ensi c psychi atr i st, exam i ned him and concl ud ed thatN o. 09

- 1156 3 he suff er ed sev er e a nd poss ibl y s uici dal depressi on that m ade hi m i ncom petent to sta nd tr i al

. Dr. Ch apm an al so concl ud ed that w i th psychi atr i c tr eat m ent a nd anti depressa n t m ed ica tio n, R ev er c ou ld b ec om e com p et en t w ith in one y ea r . Bas ed o n Dr

. Cha pm an ’ s r epo r t, th e cou rt f o und Rever u nfi t to s ta nd t r i ala nd r emande d hi m t o the M c L ea n County Departm ent o fM entalH eal th f or“t re atm en t an d r es to r at i o n t o fi tn es s. ” Th ree m o nths l at er, the co ur t he l d a f o l l o w-u p he ar i ngo n Re ve r ’ s fi tn es s. The Depa r t me n to fMe n t a l He a l th h a d fi l e d a r e p o r ts t a t i ng th atRe ve r was fi t. Af te r c o uns els ti pulated t o the r epo r t an d wai ve d a fur th erhe ar i ng, the cou r t f o und R ev er fit to st an d tria l. The co urt’ s fi nd i ng tha t Rev erwas fi t t o sta nd tr i alwas cal l ed i nto questi on abou t one m onth l ate r w hen Rever at te m p te d su icid e. D r . C h ap m an ex am in ed R ev er ag ain and rea ched a co ncl us ion s im i l arto hi s e ar l i ero ne. A cc or d i ng to Dr. Chapm an, Reve r conti nued to suff erpro f ound and pro l onge d dep re ssi on with “subst anti alhopel ess ness and sui ci dal ri sk, ” which m ade hi m unabl e t o ass i st w i th hi s defense. Dr. Chapm an added, aga i n, that a succes sful cour se ofanti d ep re ssa nts c oul d m ake Reve r fi t t o sta nd tr i al

. Based on D r. Chapm an’ s r epor t, the tr i al c ou rtag ain fou n d R e v e r u n fit t o s ta n d tria l an d ag ain re m anded hi m to the M cLean County Depart m ent o f M entalH eal th fortr eat m ent. Three m onths afterthe cour t foun d Reverunfi t f or the s ec o nd t i m e, a do ct o r a nd a n a dm i ni st r at o r a t th e D ep artm en t of M en tal H ealth p rep ared a progress report sta ti ng tha t Rev erhad bee n re sto re d to fi tness
. The tr i al4 N o. 09

- 1156

cour t hel d anotherhear i n g at wh i ch Rever ’ s co unsel st i pul at ed to th e pr o g r es s r epo r t ev en th o ug h i t co nta i ne d whathe beli eve d was a n i nc o ns i st en cy : i t co ncl ud ed that Rever w as both fi t f or tr i al and s ti l l i n need of i npati ent care
. Counselto l d the co urt, “I ’ m go i ng to st ip u lat e t o i t b e c a u se it se em s t o b e c on tr ad ict or y in ter m s but not bei ng a psychi atr i st, Idon’ t presum e t o i nt er pr et
. ” W he n the j udge f o l l o wed up o n the s ee m i ng i nc o ns i st en cy, a sk i ngc o uns elwhatthe r epo r t m ea nt w hen i t sa id Reve r w as i n need ofi npati ent c ar e, co unsel answ er e d, “ Ih a v e n o c l ue . ” Co un s e l r e pe a t e d h i s s t a t em ent that he had “no cl ue” about w hat he too k t o be a n in c on sis te n c y i n th e re p or t, bu t h e d id n ot w av er in his d esire to sti p ulate to th e rep ort. B ased on cou ns el’ s sti pu l ati on t o the rep or t, the j ud ge f ound Rever fi t t o st an d tria l. At the hea r i ng, c o uns ela l so t o l d the j udg e th ats i nc e th e r epo r t ha d b ee n pr epa r ed, Re ve r ’ s psy ch ia tr i sta t th e D ep a r t m en t o f M en ta l H ea lth h ad rais ed R ev er ’s d aily d o s a g e o fE ffe x o r, a c o mmo n a n t i d e p r e s s a n t, f r o m 7 5 mg to 225 m g. C ou ns el asked f or an o r d er that w ou ld req uire th e j ai l to c om pl y wi ththe c ha ng e. Co uns ela l so t o l d the co ur t he was g o i ngt o ha ve Dr

. Cha pm ane xa m i ne Reverag ai n to deter m i ne t h e effect ofthe i ncre ase d dosage , but that exam i nati on nev erto ok pla ce. A fterthe j ury f ound Rever gui l ty on 11 ofthe 15 counts, Re ve r s aw Dr. C ha pm ana g ai n i n pr epa r at i o n f o r s en tenci ng. I n hi s r ep or t, Dr. Chapm an di d not o pine on R ev er ’s fitn es s to st an d tr ial or to be se n te n c ed , bu t h e d id d iagnose Rev er as su ffering from bipolar disord er.N o. 09

- 1156 5 Dr

. Cha pm ant es ti fi ed as a m i ti g at i o n wi tn es s ats en te nc i ng, butdi d no t o pi ne o n Re ve r ’ s fi tn es s. The co ur t se nt en ce d Re ve r t o 3 3 y ea r s i n pr i so n. I n hi s di re ct a pp eal, Rever d id not di scuss hi s fi tness to sta nd tr i al

. The appell ate cour t affi rm ed and also d i d n o tme n t i o n th e i s s u e . A f t e r th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Court denie d his p eti ti on f orl eave to appeal, Reve r so u gh t p os t-c on vic tio n relie f in t h e t ria l co u rt . In h is p etition, R e v e r argue d that his tri al coun sel w as ineff ecti ve f oral l owing hi m to be tr i ed w ith ou t a fullfi tness hear i ng and thatappel l ate co unsel was i neff ecti ve f or fai li ng t o rai se th e issue on ap p eal. Th e trialcou rt f o und tha t Re ve r ’ s pet i ti o n state d the g i sto fa c o ns ti tu
t i o n a l c l a i m, s o th e c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l a n d h e l d a he ar i ng . At the h eari ng, Dr

. Cha pm ant es ti fi ed th atthe seem ingly contrad ictory find ings in the p rogress rep ort w er e not necess ar i l y i nconsi ste nt: a defe nd ant coul d be both fit to s tand tr i aland i n need ofi npati ent t re atm ent. Dr. C h ap m an al so expla i ned that he had not f or m ed an op i ni o n o n Re ve r ’ s fi tn es s to s ta nd t r i ala t th e ti m e o fthe agency r epor t a nd thathe was notpre pared to do s o re tr ospect i vel y. O n the otherhand, tho ugh, Dr. Chapm an expla i ned that he o r anothe r m ed ical profess i onal coul d fo rm ula te such an o pini on r etr ospect i vel y. Aft erhe ar i nga r g um en t o n the pe ti tion, the j udg e, who ha d a l s o o v e r s e e n the c r i mi na l t r i a l, a c k no wl e dg e d tha t he had “m ade an e rr orby nothavi ng a re sto rati on o f fi tn es s he ar i ng . ” N ev er th el es s, he de ni ed Re ve r ’ s pet i ti o n, st ati ng that “ther e i s no evi dence” that Rever w as u n fit at th e tim e o f trial. M oreover, th e jud ge not ed th at R ever’s6 N o. 09

- 1156 conductdu r ingt r i a lde mon s t r ate d his fi tness
. A ccor dingl y, th e trialcou rt found that neith er tri al coun sel’s fai lure to dem and a h ea ringnorappel l ate co unsel ’ s f ai l ure to ra i se the i ssue const i tuted i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce. Reverap p eal ed, ar gui ng o nl y that hi s a pp el l ate cou n se l was i neff ecti ve f orf ai l i ng to r ai se com petence. T he I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt a ffirm ed the trial cou rt’s ruling bu t on sli gh t ly d ifferent grou nd s. First, the cou rt he l d tha t th e t ria l c o ur t di d no t er r b y a cc ept i ng co uns el ’ s st i pul at i o n t o Re ve r ’ s fi tn es s, so appe l l at e co unsel ’ s f ai l ure to ra i se the i ssue w as not obj ecti velyunrea sonab l e. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , a fi tness fi nd i ng ca n not be b as ed on a st ip u lat ion to th e e x ist en c e o f a p sy c h iat ric c on c lu sio n, th e c ou rtex p lain ed , bu t t h e s tip u lat io n in th i s ca se was t o a r epo r t th atthe trial co ur t ha d r ea d a nd disc ussed wit h c ou nsel

. I n additi on, the cour t had o bs e r v e d the de f e nd a nt b e f o r e a c c e pt i ng the s t i pu l a t i o n. On the s eco nd pro ng o fthe tes t f ori neffecti ve ass i sta nce, th e appe l l at e co ur t he ld thatRe ve r c o ul d no t sh o w prej udice bec ause the t ri alco urt had proper l y f ound both bef or e t ri aland du rin g the post

- convi cti on pro ceedi ngs that he was fi t f ortr i al

. The I l l i noi s Suprem e Court denie d R ev er ’s p et itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l. R ev er th en file d a p et itio n for a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s in f edera l co urt. H e a rg ued agai n that tr ial counselwas i neff ecti ve f orf ai l i ng to se ek a fi tness hear i ng be f or e t ri al and that a pp el l ate co u n sel w as i neff ecti ve f orf ai l i ng to ra i se the i ssue. The di str i ct c ourt o rder ed the sta te to r es po nd, he l d a he ar i ng by te l eph o ne , an d d en ied the peti ti on be c au se Reverhad f ai l ed to pre sent substa nti alN o. 09

- 1156 7 f ac ts tha t woul d s ho w he w as unf i t to s ta nd t r i al

. The c o ur t a c k no wl e dg e d tha t t r i a l c o un s e l may ha v e e r r e d, but r ule d that Reverhad not shown thatany er ro r w as prej ud i ci albec ause he had f ai l ed to pre sent evi dence sh o wi ngtha t he was unfi t to s ta nd t r i al

. The cou r t went on to d en y Rev er’s al tern ative requ est for an evide nt iary he aring on h is fit ne ss bec au se R ever d id n ot satisfy the r equi re m ents of28 U

. S. C. § 2 25 4(I). But the dist ri ct cour t di d gra nt R eve r a ce rt i fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty on tw o i ssues : ( 1) W hetherpeti ti onersuffi ci entl y dem on str ate d a r eal an d substanti aldoubt a s t o hi s fi tness to sta nd tr i al, wh i ch w oul d then shi ft th e b u rden t o the S tat e t o dem onst ra te that he w as in factfi t a t th e ti m e o ft r i al ; a nd (2) W h et h er , i f p et i t ion er d id n ot su fficie n tly dem onst ra te such doubt, thi s Courte rred i n deny i ng hi m a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i nga t whi chhe m i ght e stabl i sh thi s doubt, i n l i ght o fthe Se cti on 2 2 5 4 s t a n d a r d , w h e r e b y th e e ff e c t i v e n e s s o r i n c o mpetence ofco unsel duri ng Federalo r St ate co l l ate r a l p o s tc o nv i c t i o n pr o c e e ding s a r e n o tg r oun ds for reli ef. (Id . at 1 9.)

II. A N A L Y S IS On a ppeal, b o thpa r ti es di r ec t th ei r e ff o r ts t o the i ssues o n w hi ch the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the cer ti fi cate ofappeal abi l i ty. Tha t i s unf or tunate because the dist ri ct8 N o. 09

- 1156

c ou rtid en tifie d th e w ro n g iss u es . Re ve r ar gu ed in h is p etit i o n tha t hi s tr i alc o uns elwas i ne ff ec ti ve f o r g o i ng to tr i alwitho ut a fi tness hear i ng and thatappel l ate counselwas al so i neff ecti ve f or fa i l i ng to r ai se the i ssu e. (T h e first ar gu m en t w as n ot p re se n te d to t h e Il lin ois Appe l l a t e Co ur ta nd i s , the r e f o r e , pr o c e du r a l l y de f a ul t e d. Se eGonzal e s v. M ize, 56 5 F .3d 37 3, 38 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ).) Ratherthan e x am ini ng the st ate co urts ’ anal ysi s o f R ever’s claim s of ineffective ass is t an ce, the d istri ct cou rt appl i ed pr e- AE DPA l aw t o a ss es s Re ve r ’ s und erly i ng fi t ne s s c l a i m. S pe c i fi c a l l y , the di s t r i c t c o ur t a pp l i e d Lewis v. Lan e, 8 2 2 F

. 2 d 7 0 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , wh i c h a do pt e d a b u rd en sh iftin g a p p ro ac h to fitn es s c laim s p r e s e n te d in f edera l habea s: o nce the peti ti onerpre se n ts substa nti al f ac ts s uppo r tinghi s al l eg at i o n o fi nc o m pet en cy, the burden shi fts to the stat e t o show that the peti ti onerwas in fac t c om p et en t t o s ta n d tria l. Id. at 706- 07. But und er A ED PA , federa l co urts do notindepend entl y a nal yze the pe titi oner ’ s cl ai m s; federa l co urts ar e l i m i ted to r evie w in g t h e re lev an t st at e c ou rtru lin g on th e c laim s. See Du n l a p v . Hepp , 43 6 F

. 3d 73 9, 744 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ci ting Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 529 U

. S. 362 (2000)). The i nde pen den t r ev i ew a ppl i ed i n Lewis d id n ot s u rv ive A E D P A

. See Stu rgeo n v . Ch a nd ler, 55 2 F

. 3d 604, 61 2 ( 7th C i r. 20 09) (review ing state c ou rt de term ination of com p eten cy); Woods v . M cBr i de, 430 F.3d 813 , 820 (7th C ir. 2005) (sam e). Thu s, the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have l i m i ted i ts re vi ew to th e rulings of th e Illi nois cou rts tha t con side red Rev er’s ar gum ents. Altho ug h Rever c as ts hi s ar g um en ts i n the wro ng dir ecti on, theyar e e asi l y r ecas t a s chal l engi ng the st ateN o. 09

- 1156 9

cour t pr oce edi ngs. A t bo tt om , Reve r’ s a rg um ent i s that the s t a t e c o ur t s v i o l a t e d hi s c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i ght t o a re as on ab le o p p or tu n ity to d em on st ra te th at h e w as u n fit to be trie d

. SeeM edina v. Ca li forni a , 505 U

. S. 4 37, 451 ( 1992 ); D rop e v. M issou ri, 42 0 U .S. 16 2, 18 0 (1 97 5); Woods , 43 0 F

. 3d at 819. Ill i noi s i m ple m ents that ri ght b y s tatute: o nce a d efe n d a n t p re se n ts a “b on a fid e d ou b t” ab ou t h is fi tness , the burden shi fts to t h e s tat e t o prove fi tness by a p re p on d er an c e o f ev id en c e. 72 5 IL C S 5 /1 04 -11 ; see also St urge on , 55 2 F

. 3d at 610 ( “[ S] ecti on 1 04- 11 p ro tect s a const i tuti onalr i ght. ”)

. That standard als o app l i es to postc on vic tio n cla im s, s e e Pe o p l e v . Sh um , 797 N

. E.2 d 609, 61 6 (I ll

. 2003), an d the trial cou rt ap p li ed i t w he n the cou rt denie d Rever ’ s r equest f orpost
- convi cti on r el i efbas ed on i ts fi nd i ng tha t “[ t] here is no e vi dence that[ Rever ] was unfi t when tri alco m m enced. ” In o therwords, the tr i al cour t f ound that, i n the re tr ospe c ti ve hear i ng, Reve r f ai l ed to subm i t ev idence sho w i ng a bona fi de doubt as to h is fitn es s, so a fu ll ret ro sp ec ti v e h ea rin g on h is fi tness bef or e t ri alwas not necess ar y. The I l l i no i s App ell at e Cou r t se ems t o ha ve c o nsi dered the tr i alco urt’ s fi nd i ng to be an expl i ci t fi tness d eterm ina t io n , and Rev er attac ks th e ap p ell ate cou rt’s r ul i ng o n tha t b a s i s . De s pi t e o ur do ub t s a b o ut that port i on of t h e a pp el l ate co urt’ s r uling, we need not d elv e in to it be c a u s e , w h ile ou r re vie w ad j u d ica tio n in state cou rt i s l i m i te d t o the l as t dec i si o n t o a d dr es s th e ar gu m en ts on th e m er its , see Sm iley v . Thu rm er, 54 2 F. 3d 574, 58 0 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 8) , o ur defer ence to f actual fin d in gs in st at e c o u rt, see 28 U

. S. C. § 2 254( e) ( 1) , i s no t s o l i m i ted . Se c ti on 2 254( e) ( 1) ’ s t ext m ake s that cl ear : “a10 N o. 09

- 1156 deter m i nati on of a f actual i ssue m ade by a Statecourt sh all b e presum ed to be cor re ct. ” Id. (em p ha sis add ed ); see H a nn o n v . Sec’y, D ep’t o f C o rr. , 562 F.3d 1146, 1150 ( 11th Cir. 20 09 ); se e also Sum ner v. M ata , 44 9 U.S

. 53 9, 54 7 ( 1981 ) ( preA ED PA )

. A nd thatdefer ence to sta te cour ts’ f actual fi nd i ngs a pp l i es eve n w hen w e r efuse t o defe r to the s tat e c ou rt s’ le ga l ad j u d ica tio n . SeeBrow n v. Sm it h , 551 F

. 3d 424, 43 1 (6 th C ir. 20 08 ); H odge s v. A t t or ney Gen. , Sta t eof Fl a. , 50 6 F.3 d 13 37, 134 8 (1 1t h C ir. 20 07 ); Ja co bs v . Ho rn , 39 5 F

. 3d 92, 10 0 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 5)

. Thu s, e ve n i fR ev erc ano ve r co m e o ur A ED PA defer ence to the a pp el l ate co urt’ s a dj ud i catio n of his claim , w e stil l p re s u m e t o be correct th e trialcou rt’s fi ndi ngtha t he di d no t pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev i dence atthe re tr os p ec tiv e h ea rin g t o ra ise a b on a fid e d ou b t a s t o h is com petence and, ther ef or e, f ai l ed to sho w that he w as p rej u d ice d by ap p ella te co u n se l’s c on d u c t. Se ePe opl ev. H arris , 794 N .E .2d 18 1, 18 9-9 0 (Ill. 2 0 02 ); Peop l ev. P itso nba rger, 793 N

. E

. 2d 609, 628-30 (I ll

. 2002). Reverat tack s that fin d in g on two fro nts, but both att acks f ai l

. Fi rs t, he poi nts to the re port by th e D epart
m ent o fM entalH eal th

— th e o n ly ev id en c e t h at h e w as fit to st an d t r i al

. Acco r di ngt o Re ve r, the r epo r t co nt ai ns “i nnum er abl e pr obl em s, ” but he enum er ate s o nl y t w o. The fi r sti s th e s eem i ngi nc o ns i st en cyb etwee n the re port ’ s co ncl usion t hat Rev erwas fi t f ortr i albut al so in n ee d o fi npa ti en t ca r e. ButRe ve r ’ s o wn ex pert expla i ned i n the post- convi cti on pro ceedi ng s that these two fi ndi ng s wer e no t ne ce ss ar i l y i nc o ns i st en t. The seco nd purport ed p ro bl em i s the r epor t’ s e xplanat i on th at R ev er d id n ot “fu lly u n d er st an d t h at fac in g h is charg es and res ol vi ng hi s l ega l p ro bl em s is the bestway toN o. 09

- 1156 11 dim i ni sh hi s depre ssi ve fee li ngs, ” but Reverdoes not ex pl ai n h o w tha t st at ementmightb e i nc o ns i st en t w ith a fi nd i ng o fco m petency. I n f act, the sta tem ent i s no t abou t fi tn ess to stan d tri al; i t is abou t treating R ever’s depressi on , a nd notev er y m entali l l ness dem onst ra tes in c om p et en c e t o s t an d tria l. See E dd m o nd s v. P eters , 93 F.3d 130 7, 1314 ( 7th Cir. 1996). R ever’s se c ond argum en t against the sta te cou rt’s fin d in g t h at h e fa iled to p re se n t e n ou gh ev i d e n c e to ca ll his co m petency i nto questi on r el i es on the shar p i ncre ase i n h i s m edi ca ti o n s ho r tl y b efo r e tr i al

. I n Bur tv. U ch tm an , 42 2 F

. 3d 55 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , thi s co ur t h eld tha t th e tr i alcour t sh o ul d ha ve c o nduc te d a c o m pet en cyhe ar i ng ba se d i n pa r t o n the pe ti ti o ne r ’ s “h ea vya nd e ve r - ch an g i ng doses ofpsycho tr opi c m edi cati on. ” Id. at 56 5-6 6. B u t in B urt, ther e was o therevi dence sugg est i ng i ncom petence

— m ost i m po r ta nt l y , o n the f o ur thda y o ft r i al, the pet i ti o ne r s udden l y de ci ded to pl ea d g ui l tya g ai ns t co unse l’s a d vic e. B y c on tr as t, R ev er ’s c on d u c t d u rin g t ria l d id nothi ng to cal l hi s co m petence i nto questi on. The i ncre ase i n the dosage o fReve r’ s m ed icati on, o n i ts own , i s no t suf fi ci ent e vi dence to r ebut the st ate co urt’ s fi nd i ng. Reverhad the opportunity duri ng the st ate post
- convi cti o n pr o ce edi ng s to pr es en t m edi ca l e vi den ce c ha l l en g i ng the r epor t that fo und hi m fi t. A nd had he pre sente d suf fi ci en t evidence, he woul d have s hi fted the burden t o the s tat e t o prove hi s fi tness
. Reve r coul d have pre sente d ev i den ce o n the do sa g e i nc r ea se o r a ny th i ng el se , b uthe did notdo s o, and hi s a tte m pt to subm i t that e vi dence i n fede r alhabe as r ev i ew c o m es t o o l at e. R ever’ s ar g u-12 N o. 09

- 1156

me n tth a tth e d i s t r i c tc o ur t er r e d i n d e n y i n gh i m a he a r i ngt o p r e s e ntmo r e e v i den c e u nd e r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 22 54 ( e) ( 2) i s m er i tl es s be ca us e he c o nc ede s th athe cannot sat i sfy a ny o fthatprov isio n’s exce pti ons. Reve r has f ai l ed to sho w t h e c l earand convi nci ng ev i dence ne cessar y t o r eb utthe s ta te t r i alc o ur t’ s fi ndi ngo n the evi dence he pr ese nted i n the re tr ospect i ve hear i ng. 28 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 )

. Ac c o r di ng l y , we mus tde f e r t o that fi ndi nga nd ho l d tha t Re ve r di d n ot pr es en t su ffi ci en t evid en ce to s h o w p rej ud ice from ap p ell ate cou ns el’ s f ai l ure to ra i se the i ssue ofco m petence.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s denialo f Re ve r ’ s pet i ti o n.

1- 4- 10