FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT SEPT 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1107 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-01767 -CV -O RL -18KRS JEFF ERY C. W EBSTER,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DOC, FL ATTORNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 9, 200 8) Be fo re BA RKE T T , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Je ff er y W eb ste r, aF lor ida

pr iso ne r co nvi ct ed

of r obbe ry w ithade ad ly we apon, appeals pro se the denial of his habeas corpus petitio n, which was br ou gh t p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 , all eg in g i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

on the li m ite d is sue of w he the r W eb ste r’ s tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e be ca

use , dur ing W eb ste r’ s tr ia l, he di d n otful ly exam in e, en ha nc e, an d p res en t a s urve il la nc e v id eo of t he cri m e. O n a ppe al , W eb ste r ar gue s, f

ir st, that, by

f ai lin g to inv es tig at e the sur ve ill an ce vid eo and p hot ogr ap hic sti lls f ro m the vid eo , his c ouns el f

ai le d to inv es tig at e W eb ste r’ s “ one pla usi ble li ne of

de fe nse that c oul d sc ie nti fi ca lly pr ove his inn oc en ce ” an d w as , the re fo re , ine ff ec tiv e. H e ar gue s th at : ( 1) ge om etri c m ea sur em en ts r ev ea l tha t i t w as phy sic al ly im poss ibl e fo r him

to have be enthe ind ivi dua l onthe vid eo ; ( 2) the j ur y c onsi de re d th e vid eo and the pho tog ra phi c sti lls dur ing it s de lib er at ion s; and ( 3) no r ea sona ble a tto rn ey

w oul d have f

ai le d to co nduc t an in ve sti ga tio n. W eb ste r str es se s th at he and h is atto rn ey

dis cu sse d th e phy sic al dif

fe re nc es be tw ee n hi m se lf and the ind ivi dua l onthe vid eo , but his co unse l di d no t i nve sti ga te the se dif fe re nc es and, the re fo re , ha d li ttl e to p re se nt t oA t e c hn iqu e wh e re g e ome tr ic pr op e rt ie s o f o bje c ts a re de te rm ine d u sin gph oto g ra ph ic 1 ima g e s. 3 the j ury . Using “phot ogram m etry ,” he argues that there are diff erence s betwee n 1 his own bo dy , part ic ularl y in ar m le ngth, and the body

of the ind ivi dua l i n th e video and th e stills. H e ar gues that, if his counsel had presented th e fa cts related to the pho togram

m etry at trial, the charges against him would have been dis m iss ed . W eb ste r, se co nd, arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to dis m iss his habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing wa s unreasonable. I. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of a§ 22 54 p et iti on d e novo , w hil e the co urt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s are r ev ie w ed

f or c le ar e rr or . S ee S im s v. S ing le tary , 155 F. 3d 1 297, 130 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . Mi xe d qu es tio ns o f lawand f ac t, inc lud ing in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s, al so are re vi ewedde no vo . Id. Whe re ac la im

w as a dj udi cate d onthe m er its in state c ourt, f ed er al c ourts s h a l l n o tg r an th ab e a s r e l i e f u n l e s s th e a d

j u d i c a t i o no f

th e c l a i m: (1) re sulted in a decision that was contrar y to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clear ly established Federal law , a s de te rm ine d by

the S upr em e Co urt of

the U nit ed

S tate s; o r (2 ) re sul te d inade ci sio n th at w as ba se d onan unre as ona ble de te rm inatio n of

the f ac ts i n li ght

of the e vid en ce pr es en te d inthe St at e co urt pr oc ee din g.4

28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . When a convicted defendant claim s that his cou nsel’ s assistance was ine ff ec tiv e, the de fe ndant m

ust sho wthat ( 1) his c ouns el w as de fi ci en t, i. e. , m ad e er ro rs so s er iou s th at

c ouns el w as not

f unc tio nin g a s gu ar an te ed und er the S ixth Amen d m en t , a n d(2 ) t h er e i s a r ea s o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty th at , b u tfo r c o u n s el ’s un pr of es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. Stri ck land v . W as hin gto n, 466 U . S. 668 , 687 , 104 S . Ct . 205 2, 206 4, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 (1 984) . “ U nle ss a

de fe ndant m ak es both sh ow ing s, it c annot be sa id tha t the co nvi ct ion. . . r es ult ed

f ro m abr eakdown inthe a dve rs ar y pr oc es s th at

r en de rs the res ul t u nr el iabl e.” Id . at 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 .

“ Fo r pe rf orm an ce to be de fi ci en t, it m ust be e sta bli she d th at , in lig ht o f al l the c ir cum stanc es , c ouns el ’ s pe rf orm an ce w as out sid e the w ide r an ge of pr of es sio na l c om

pe te nc e. ” P utm an , 268 F . 3d at 12 43. R ev ie w ing c ourts m ust be high ly defer ential and utili ze the strong presum ption that counsel’s per form ance w as r ea sona

ble . C handl er

v. U nit ed S tate s, 218 F . 3d 1 305, 131 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) (en banc). “ [B] ecause counsel’ s conduct is presum ed rea sonable, for a petition er to s howthat the c ondu ct

w as unr ea sona

ble , ape tit ion er

m ust e sta bli sh tha t no com petent couns el w ouldhave taken the action that his coun sel did take.” I d. at 1315 . Ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity of adif fe re nt r es ult

a t tri al is one suf

fi ci en t t o5

unde rm ine c onf

ide nc e in the out co m e, and the de fe ndant m ust do m or e than sh ow th atth e err orha d s om e co nc ei vabl e effe cton th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in g. Strickland, 466 U. S. at 693-94, 104 S.Ct. at 2067-68 . When an indiv idual challenges a state court’ s Strickland decision, “ it is notenough to convin ce a fe de ra l ha be as c ourt tha t, in its ind ep en de nt j udgm en t, the state -c ourt de ci sio n applied Strickland incorrectly . . . . he m ust sh ow that the [state c ourt] applied Stri ck land t o th e fa ct s of

his c as e in an ob

j ec tiv el y unr ea sona

ble m anne r. ” Be ll v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 699, 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 1852, 152 L. Ed. 2d 91 4 (2002). Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e b rie fs of t he pa rti es , we dis ce rnno r ev er sib le e rr or . W eb ste r w as pos iti ve ly ide nti fi ed

by an e y ew itn es s who als o i de nt ifi edW eb st er’s v eh ic le in ad di ti on to th e su rv ei ll an ce v id eo . Moreover, W ebster has not sho wn that additional in vestigatio n by his attorney w ithr es pe ct

to the vid eo w oul d have r es ult ed in ex one ratin g c lari fi catio n of the vid eo . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing his c la im

f or ha be as r el ie f ba se d on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. II. W e re view a district court’ s decision to deny an evidentiary

hearing for an ab use of dis cr et ion . K el le y

v. S ec ’ y f or D ep ’ t of Co rr . , 377 F . 3d 1 317, 133 3 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . T he appl ic ab le f ed er al ha be as statut e pr ovi de s th at :6

[i ] f the appl ic an t ha s f

ai le d to de ve lop the f

ac tua l ba sis of

ac la im in State c ourt proceedings, the court shall not hold an evid entiary hearing on the claim

unless th e applicant shows that-- (A ) the claim

relies on-- (i ) a ne wr

ule of c onst itutio na l l aw , m ad e re tr oa ct ive to ca se s on co llate ra l r ev ie wby

the S upr em e Co urt, that w as pr ev iou sly unava ila ble ; or (ii) a factual pre dicate that could not have been previouslydiscovered thr oughthe e xe rc ise of

due dil ige nc e; and (B ) the f ac ts unde rl y ing the c la im w oul d be suf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh b y cl ear an d c onvi nc ing e vid en ce that but f or c onst itutio na l e rr or , no re as ona ble f ac tf ind er w oul d have f

ound the appl ic an t gu ilty

of the underly ing offense. 28 U . S. C. § 22 54( e) (2 ). T he U . S. S upr em e Co urt ha s he ld tha t: [f ] or state c ourts t o have the ir r igh tf ul o ppor tun ity to ad j udi cate federa l rights, the prisoner m ust be dili gent in develo ping the rec ord an d pr es en tin g, if

pos sib le , a ll cl ai m s of

c onst itutio na l e rr or . I f the prisoner fails to do so , him self or herse lf contributin g to the absence of a full and fa ir adj udication in state court, § 2254(e)(2) prohibi ts an ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing to de ve lop the r el ev an t c la im s inf ed er al c ourt, unless th e statute's other stringent requirem ents are m et. Federa l co urts s itt ing in habe as are not an a lte rn at ive f

or um f or tr y ing f ac ts an d is sue s whic h apr iso ne r m ad e ins uf fi ci en t e ff ort t o purs ue in state pr oc ee din gs. W ill iam s v. T ay lor , 529 U . S. 420 , 437 , 120 S . Ct . 147 9, 149 1, 146 L . E d. 2d 4 35 (2 00 0) .7

Be ca use W eb ste r did

not de ve lop his c la im

f ull y in state c ourt, and h is c la im did not r el y on a ne wr ule of c onst itutio na l l aw , nor

af ac tua l pr ed ic at e that c oul d not have be enpr ev iou sly

dis co ve re d, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in de nyin g Webs te r’s pe ti ti on wit ho utan ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.