FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16016 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -003 34 -C V -J E C -1 A N T O N I O E V A N S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s V I C T O R W A L K E R , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 11, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G e o r g ias ta te p r is o n e rA n to n io E v a n s ap p e a ls p r o s e th e d e n ia l o f h is2

pe t i t i on f ora w r i tof

habe a s c orpus . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty on the i s s ue w he the rE va ns ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng to o b je c t, m o v e f

o ra c u r a tiv e in s tru c tio n , a n d m o v e f o ra m is tr ia l a f

te ra s ta te w itn e s s a r g u ab ly p la c e d E v a n s ’s c h a r a c te rin is s u e . B e c a u s e E v a n s f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th e d e c is io n o f th e s ta te c o u r t w a s “c o n tr a ry to ” o r“a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p l i c a t i o n o f

” Su p r e me Co u r tp r e c e d e n t , 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) , w e a f f i rm. A tE v an s’ s tri al fo r fel o n y m u rd er an d p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, de f e ns e c ouns e l a s ke d a s t a t e w i tne s s dur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on w he the rthe w i tne s s s ol d drugs . T he s t a t e w i tne s s the n de ni e d s e l l i ng drugs a nd vo l un t ee re d thatE vans sol d d rugs. E vans ar gu es thathi s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o o bj ec t , m ov e f

or a c urat i ve i nstruct i on , and m ov e f or a m i s tr i a l . E va ns m a i nt a i ns tha tthi s e rr orunde rm i ne d the va l i di ty of the ve r di c t , a nd thatthere i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty that , bu tfor thi s e rr or, the re sul tof the tri al w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d e n ia l o f h ab e a s r e lie f

b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, M c N a ir v. C a m pbe l l , 416 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1828 ( 2006) , butC r ow e ’ s habe a s pe t i t i on i s gove rne d by the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f

1 9 9 6 , w h ic h lim its o u rr e v ie w o f th e d e c is io n s o f

th e s ta te c our t s a nd e s t abl i s he s a “ ge ne r a l f r a m e w ork of

s ubs t a nt i a l de f

e r e nc e ” f or3

r e vi e w i ng “ e ve ry i s s ue tha tthe s t a t e c our t s ha ve de c i de d. ” D i a z v. S e c ’ y f orthe D e p’ tof C orr . , 402 F . 3d 1136, 1141 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A f e de r a l c our tm a y not g ran th ab eas rel i ef o n cl ai m s th atw ere p rev i o u sl y ad j u d i cat ed i n st at e co u rtu n l ess the adj ud i ca t i on “ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the S u p r e m e C o u r t . . . o r. . . r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rt pr oc e e di ng. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) ( 1) - ( 2) . A s t a t e c our tde c i s i on i s “ c ontr a ry t o” es t abl i shed l aw i f ( 1) the st at e c ou rtarri ves a ta c on cl usi on op po si t e t o thatre ac hed b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o n a q u e s tio n o f la w , o r( 2 ) a s ta te c o u r t c o n f r o n ts f a c ts

“ m at er i al l y i nd i st i ng ui shabl e” fr om re l evantS up re m e C ou rtprec edent , bu tre ac hes a n oppos i t e r e s ul t . W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U . S . 362, 405, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1519 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . A s ta te c o u r t d e c is io n is a n “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ” o f c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d l a w i f

the s t a t e c our tunr e a s onabl y appl i e s c ontr ol l i ng l a w , or un re as on abl y e xt ends, or fa i l s t o ext end, a l egal pri nci pl e t o a new cont ext . Id. at 4 0 7 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 1 5 2 0 . “[ A ] d e te rm in a tio n o f a f a c tu a l is s u e m a d e b y a S ta te c our ts ha l l be pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t . T he appl i c a nts ha l l ha ve the bur de n of r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of c orr e c tne s s by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . ” 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) .4

T o est abl i sh i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , a def endantm ustprov e that (1) the performance of hi s a tt orney w as const i tut i on al l y def i ci ent , and (2) he w as p r e ju d ic e d a s a r e s u lt. S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4 ). A n att o rn ey’ s p erfo rm an ce i s m easu red fo r “ reaso n ab l en ess unde rpr e va i l i ng pr of

e s s i ona l norm s . ” I d. a t688, 104 S . C t . a t2065. T o pr ove pr e j udi c e , E va ns “ m us ts how tha tthe r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf or coun se l ’ s unp rofe ss i on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been d if f e r e n t.” I d . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 8 . I f th e d e f e n d a n t f a ils to s a tis f

y h is bur de n unde re i the rpa r tof thi s t e s t , w e ne e d nota ddr e s s the othe rpa r t . I d. a t697, 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 9 . U nde rG e or gi a l a w , the gove rnm e nti s nota l l ow e d t o i ntr oduc e e vi de nc e of the chara ct erof a def

endantun l es s the defendantfi rs tpu t s hi s c hara ct eri n i ss ue, e ith e rth r o u g h h is o w n u n s w o rn s ta te m e n ts o rb y w itn e s s e s w h o te s tif y ab o u t h is r e p u ta tio n in th e c o m m u n ity . J o n e s v . S ta te , 3 6 3 S .E .2 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 2 ( G a . 1 9 8 8 ) . A n o n r e s p o n s iv e a n s w e r“d o e s n o t p la c e th e d e f e n d a n t’s c h a r a c te rin is s u e ,” e v e n if the a ns w e ri m pa c t s ne ga t i ve l y on the c ha r a c t e rof the de f e nda nt . I d. I n H a ns l e y v. S t a t e , f ore xa m pl e , w he n a s t a t e w i tne s s w a s a s ke d i f he w a s f a m i l i a rw i th the m ur de rw e apon, he vol unt e e r e d tha the ha d pr e vi ous l y s e e n H a ns l e y dr a w the w e ap o n a n d p o in t it a t af r ie n d o f th e w itn e s s . 4 7 2 S .E .2 d 3 0 5 , 3 0 6 ( G a . 1 9 9 6 ) .5

H a ns l e y uns uc c e s s f

ul l y m ove d f

ora m i s tr i a l on the gr ound tha tthe s t a t e m e ntof the w i tness pu thi s c hara ct eri n i ss ue. Id. T he G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rtaf fi rm ed the order of the tri al courtdenyi ng H ansl ey ’ s m ot i on for anew tri al , re as on i ng that

“ [a ] no nres po nsi ve answ erthati m pact s negat i vel y on a defendant ’ s c hara ct erdo es n o t im p r o p e r ly p la c e th e d e f e n d a n t’s c h a r a c te rin is s u e .” I d . T he c onc l us i on of

the s t a t e habe a s c our ttha tE va ns f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y the S tr ic k la n d te s t w a s n o t a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f f e d e r a l la w . E v a n s f

a ile d to e s t abl i s h tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o the t e s t i m ony of the st at e w i tness thatE vans sol d d rugs because there w as no basi s f or an obj e c t i on unde rG e or gi a l a w . S e e J one s , 363 S . E . 2d a t535. E va ns f a i l e d t o pr ove th a t th e p e r f

o r m a n c e o f

h is a tto rn e y w a s d e f

ic ie n t. T h e d e n ia l o f

E v a n s ’s p e titio n f

o ra w r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s is A F F I R M E D .