[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11711

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00159-RH

DARRYL BRIAN BARWICK, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 21, 2015)

Before WILSON, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Death-row inmate Darryl Brian Barwick appeals the denial of his petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 1 of 42 
[2]

Court for the Northern District of Florida. For the following reasons, the district 

court’s order denying Barwick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

I.

On the morning of March 31, 1986, Rebecca Wendt was sunbathing at her 

Panama City apartment-complex pool until she returned to her apartment. Around 

that time, another apartment-complex resident, Suzanna Capers, who also was

sunbathing by the pool, observed a man walking around the complex. Capers saw 

the man she subsequently identified as Darryl Barwick walk towards Wendt’s 

apartment and later from the apartment and into the woods. 

That evening, Rebecca Wendt’s sister, who was also her roommate, returned 

home to find Rebecca’s body wrapped in a comforter. Investigators called to the 

scene found bloody footprints and fingerprints throughout the apartment. 

Rebecca’s bathing suit had been displaced, and an autopsy revealed thirty-seven 

stab wounds to her upper body and several defensive wounds on her hands. The 

medical examiner reported that death would have occurred within three to ten 

minutes of the first stab wound. No evidence of sexual contact with the victim was 

found, but criminal laboratory tests revealed a semen stain on the comforter 

wrapped around the victim. Further testing indicated that the stain could have been 

left by two percent of the population and that Barwick fell within that two percent.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 2 of 42 
[3]

When initially questioned, Barwick denied involvement in the murder. But 

after he was arrested on April 15, 1986, Barwick made a full confession. Barwick 

told investigators that after he had observed Rebecca sunbathing, he went home, 

parked his car, got a knife, walked back to Rebecca’s apartment complex, walked 

past her three times, and then followed her into her apartment. Barwick claimed 

that when he entered Wendt’s apartment, he had only intended to steal something, 

but when Rebecca resisted, he lost control and stabbed her, and continued to stab 

her repeatedly as they struggled and fell to the floor.

Barwick was then indicted on four counts: (1) first-degree murder; (2) armed 

burglary; (3) attempted sexual battery; and (4) armed robbery. He was tried by a 

jury and convicted on all counts. By a 9-3 vote, the jury recommended that 

Barwick be put to death, and the judge subsequently sentenced Barwick to death.1

 

On appeal, however, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Barwick’s convictions 

and sentences and remanded for a new trial.2

 

1 The trial court sentenced Barwick to two life terms and one thirty-year term on the 

noncapital offenses. 

2 Barwick v. State, 547 So. 2d 612, 612 (Fla. 1989) (per curiam) (“Barwick I”) (holding 

that Barwick, who is white, still had standing to object to peremptory challenges directed to 

prospective black jurors on the ground that they were excluded solely because of their race).

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 3 of 42 
[4]

On the third day of his second trial, a mistrial was declared,3 and a new trial 

commenced on July 6, 1992. Barwick was again convicted on all counts. This 

time the jury unanimously recommended Barwick be put to death, and the judge so 

sentenced him. The trial judge found six aggravators proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt: (1) previous convictions of violent felonies of sexual battery with force 

likely to cause death or great bodily harm and burglary of a dwelling with an 

assault; (2) the murder was committed during an attempted sexual battery; (3) the 

murder was committed to avoid arrest; (4) the murder was committed for 

pecuniary gain; (5) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (6) 

the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without 

any pretense of moral justification.4

 The trial court found no statutory mitigation, 

and despite recognizing that Barwick suffered abuse as a child and had some 

mental deficiencies, it wrote in its sentencing order that there were no nonstatutory mitigating factors, either. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed 

Barwick’s convictions and death sentence. Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685, 697 

(Fla. 1995) (per curiam) (“Barwick II”). The United States Supreme Court denied 

 

3 The trial judge promptly declared a mistrial after a prosecution witness testified that 

Barwick had failed a polygraph. 

4 The Florida Supreme Court struck the last aggravator on direct appeal, concluding that 

the evidence suggested that Barwick had planned to rape, rob, and burglarize, but not murder the 

victim. Nevertheless, it found that five aggravating factors remained against minimal mitigating 

evidence, so the death sentence was not unreasonable. Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685, 696-97 

(Fla. 1995) (per curiam).

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 4 of 42 
[5]

certiorari on January 22, 1996. Barwick v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1097 (1996) 

(“Barwick III”).

On March 17, 1997, Barwick filed an initial motion for post-conviction 

relief in the state circuit court, and he amended the motion on August 26, 2002, 

raising twenty-one claims in total. On December 4, 2003, the state circuit court 

granted an evidentiary hearing on four of the claims, reserved ruling on one, and 

summarily denied the remainder. In a second amended motion for postconviction 

relief, Barwick realleged the same twenty-one claims and added two new claims. 

The state circuit court issued an order denying Barwick’s motion on August 28, 

2007. Barwick filed an appeal with the Florida Supreme Court. While that appeal

was pending, he also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Florida 

Supreme Court. On June 30, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Barwick’s 

conviction and death sentence and also denied his motion for a writ of habeas 

corpus. Barwick v. State, 88 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2011) (per curiam) (“Barwick IV”).

On May 25, 2012, Barwick filed this federal habeas petition, raising seven 

issues. The district court denied all of his claims but granted a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) as to one issue, and a member of this Court expanded the 

COA to include four other claims, for a total of five claims: (1) whether Barwick’s 

trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance related to mitigation evidence during 

the penalty phase; (2) whether the district court erred in denying Barwick’s federal 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 5 of 42 
[6]

constitutional ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (“IATC”) claim with respect 

to the alleged failure of counsel to effectively challenge the guilt-phase testimony 

of state witness Suzanna Capers, which the jury was instructed to consider at the 

penalty phase; (3) whether the district court erred in denying Barwick’s federal 

constitutional claim with respect to alleged violations of Giglio v. United States, 

405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972), by allegedly permitting Capers to testify 

falsely and by emphasizing Capers’s allegedly incorrect statements to the jury; (4) 

whether the district court erred in denying Barwick’s federal constitutional 

challenge to the trial court’s rejection of Barwick’s childhood abuse as a mitigating 

circumstance; and (5) whether the district court erred in denying Barwick’s federal 

constitutional challenge to his execution as a “brain damaged, mentally impaired 

individual.” 

II.

When reviewing the denial of a habeas petition, the Court reviews de novo

questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. LeCroy v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t 

Corr., 421 F. 3d 1237, 1259 (11th Cir. 2005). It reviews findings of fact for clear 

error. Id. Relief is warranted when the state court’s resolution of a claim “was 

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal 

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or if the ruling 

“was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 6 of 42 
[7]

presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). We presume 

a state court’s factual determinations to be correct, and the applicant bears the 

burden of rebutting this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(e)(1).

III.

A. Ineffective Assistance

A person challenging a conviction based on ineffectiveness of counsel must 

show both that his counsel provided deficient assistance and that prejudice 

resulted. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 

(1984). Deficient assistance means “counsel’s representation fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. But a “wide 

range” of performance meets the standard of “reasonableness,” and we apply a 

“strong presumption” that counsel’s representation fell within that range. Id. at 

689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Only when “counsel made errors so serious that counsel 

was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment” is 

counsel’s assistance deemed to be constitutionally “deficient.” Id. at 687, 104 S. 

Ct. at 2064.

Prejudice occurs when the challenger has shown “a reasonable probability 

that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would 

have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 7 of 42 
[8]

undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. So even 

errors that have “some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding” are 

not enough to show prejudice. Id. at 693, 104 S. Ct. at 2067. Prejudice results 

only when counsel’s errors were “so serious” that they deprived the defendant of a 

“fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064.

When an IATC claim is based upon a failure to present mitigating evidence, 

we must consider “whether counsel reasonably investigated possible mitigating 

factors and made a reasonable effort to present mitigating evidence to the 

sentencing court.” Henyard v. McDonough, 459 F. 3d 1217, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006)

(per curiam). When mental health is at issue, counsel does not offer ineffective 

assistance when it later becomes apparent that an expert who would have testified 

more favorably than the expert who was actually called may have existed. See 

Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1173 (11th Cir. 2010) (“As we have held many times 

before, ‘the mere fact a defendant can find, years after the fact, a mental health 

expert who will testify favorably for him does not demonstrate that trial counsel 

was ineffective for failing to produce that expert at trial.’” (quoting Davis v. 

Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471, 1475 (11th Cir.1997))). When evaluating the claim, the

court must “consider ‘the totality of the available mitigation evidence—both that 

adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding’—and 

‘reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation.’” Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 8 of 42 
[9]

30, 41, 130 S. Ct. 447, 453-54 (2009) (per curiam) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 

529 U.S. 362, 397-98, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1515 (2000)).

In short, under Strickland, “[e]ven under de novo review, the standard for 

judging counsel’s representation is a most deferential one.” Harrington v. Richter, 

562 U.S. 86, 105, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011). Moreover, the Supreme Court has 

emphasized that the “Strickland standard must be applied with scrupulous care, lest 

‘intrusive post-trial inquiry’ threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the 

right to counsel is meant to serve.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S. 

Ct. at 2066).

And in a federal habeas proceeding, we must also apply deference to a state 

court’s rejection of a Strickland claim. See id. Title 28, United States Code, 

Section 2254(d), amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 

1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 104, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), sets forth 

the statutory authority of federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in 

state custody:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 

court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that 

was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings 

unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved 

an unreasonable application of, clearly established 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 9 of 42 
[10]

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the 

United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 

evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

In applying this standard, the Supreme Court has explained that “even a 

strong case for relief does not mean the state court’s contrary conclusion was 

unreasonable.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102, 131 S. Ct. at 786. That is, when 

evaluating a petitioner’s IATC habeas claim,

[t]he pivotal question is whether the state court’s 

application of the Strickland standard was unreasonable. 

This is different from asking whether defense counsel’s 

performance fell below Strickland’s standard. Were that 

the inquiry, the analysis would be no different than if, for 

example, this Court were adjudicating a Strickland claim 

on direct review of a criminal conviction in a United 

States district court.

 

Id. at 101, 131 S. Ct. at 785. 

In short, “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an 

incorrect application of federal law.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S. Ct. at 

1522. A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit is reasonable so long 

as “fairminded jurists could disagree” about whether the state court’s 

determination was correct. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S. Ct. 

2140, 2149 (2004). And “[t]he more general the rule, the more leeway courts have 

in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.” Id. Because “[t]he 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 10 of 42 
[11]

Strickland standard is a general one . . . the range of reasonable applications is 

substantial.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105, 131 S. Ct. at 788. In sum, “a habeas 

court must determine what arguments . . . supported . . . the state court’s decision . 

. . [and] whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree [about whether] 

those arguments . . . are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the 

Supreme] Court.” Id. at 102, 131 S. Ct. at 786.

1. The Mitigation Claim

Barwick contends that he was denied effective representation at the penalty 

phase because counsel allegedly failed to adequately present mitigating evidence. 

Counsel presented seven mental-health experts and seven lay witnesses to detail 

Barwick’s tragic home life, including years of sexual, physical, and mental abuse, 

as well as to detail Barwick’s mental deficiencies, learning disabilities, and 

psychological problems. Nevertheless, Barwick argues that trial counsel’s 

performance was deficient principally for two reasons: (1) counsel’s “kitchen sink

approach”—in which counsel presented several experts he knew would not be 

helpful to Barwick’s case in an effort to make the defense appear more trustworthy 

and forthright to the jury—undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial 

process by presenting harmful testimony that reduced the collective reliability of 

the testimony; and (2) counsel relied solely on the investigation conducted by the 

attorney who represented Barwick in his first trial and failed to uncover additional 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 11 of 42 
[12]

mitigating evidence that another expert proffered during the post-conviction

proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court rejected both of these arguments because 

Barwick failed to show either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland. 

We affirm the district court’s denial of Barwick’s penalty-phase IATC claim based 

on his failure to show prejudice without deciding if trial counsel’s conduct was 

deficient. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069 (“[T]here is no 

reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to . . . address both 

components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on 

one.”). On this record, we cannot say that the Florida Supreme Court engaged in 

an unreasonable application of federal law.

a.

To explain the basis for our decision, we first review the evidence with 

respect to both of Barwick’s arguments. We begin by summarizing the testimony 

of the three experts in particular who Barwick asserts counsel should not have 

presented: Drs. Annis, McClaren, and Warriner. 

Dr. Lawrence Annis, a clinical psychologist, testified that he examined 

Barwick twice in 1986, pursuant to court order. Dr. Annis described various 

psychological tests that he administered to Barwick, which revealed that Barwick 

exhibited overall normal intelligence but showed better motor skills than verbal 

skills. Dr. Annis further testified that although Barwick did not seem to be bipolar 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 12 of 42 
[13]

or schizophrenic, he did appear to be “seeing the world differently from the way 

normal people would see it,” and he was more sad and anxious than the typical 

inmate Dr. Annis examined. Additionally, Dr. Annis testified that Barwick 

exhibited a lot of resentment and anger, which might have resulted from physical 

abuse he endured as a child at the hands of his father, and that Barwick “showed 

many of the signs” of a “mentally disordered sex offender.”5

 Despite these 

findings, Dr. Annis testified that, in his opinion, Barwick was not insane, nor did 

he suffer from any mental disease or defect but that he did meet the criteria for an 

antisocial personality diagnosis, although Dr. Annis did not officially diagnose 

Barwick with this condition. 

Dr. Harry McClaren, a psychologist specializing in forensic psychology, 

also testified that he examined Barwick pursuant to a court order in 1986. Dr. 

McClaren administered several psychological tests on Barwick, one of which 

revealed that Barwick’s overall intelligence was in the normal range but that his 

verbal intelligence was below average. Dr. McClaren testified that Barwick 

exhibited “a degree of brain dysfunction” and that Barwick “had difficulties in the 

sexual area . . . [which] were related to what happened in this homicide.” 

 

5 Dr. Annis testified that “mentally disordered sex offender” is not a medical or 

psychological term but a legal term that was adopted by the Florida Legislature (and other 

states), to determine whether to enroll criminal defendants in sex-offender treatment programs. 

It appears that although Barwick might have qualified for treatment, the fact that he did not seem 

interested in therapy impacted Dr. Annis’s decision not to recommend him for the program. 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 13 of 42 
[14]

Furthermore, as part of his examination and assessment, Dr. McClaren testified 

that he spoke with several members of Barwick’s family, including his mother, a 

sister, and a brother, as well as Barwick’s girlfriend, and other people who had 

interacted with Barwick; in short, Dr. McClaren testified that he did “everything 

[he] could to understand [Barwick.]” These discussions and his review of other 

written materials revealed that Barwick’s father had abused Barwick as a child, and 

Dr. McClaren told the jury that this abuse “certainly” could have contributed to 

Barwick’s sexual difficulties. Dr. McClaren stated that he did not believe that 

Barwick was insane because that conclusion could be drawn only if any mental 

disease or defect that Barwick had been suffering from was so severe that it 

rendered him incapable of appreciating right from wrong or conforming his 

conduct to the law, which Dr. McClaren did not believe to be the case. Nor did Dr. 

McClaren believe that Barwick was operating under the influence of extreme 

mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the offense. Finally, Dr. McClaren 

testified that Barwick exhibited the criteria of a mentally disordered sex offender

and that he had diagnosed Barwick with an antisocial personality disorder. 

Dr. Clell Warriner, a clinical psychologist, testified that he first evaluated 

Barwick in 1980, when Barwick was just thirteen years old, at the request of an 

attorney defending Barwick on juvenile charges. By that time, Dr. Warriner told 

the jury, Barwick had already exposed himself to a girl, had hit another girl after 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 14 of 42 
[15]

she had called him a name, and had touched a third woman inappropriately. These 

prior instances of sexual misconduct may have been inadmissible if offered by the 

government.6

 Dr. Warriner further testified that he examined Barwick for a second 

time three years later, in 1983, this time at the request of an attorney representing 

Barwick on sexual-battery charges. Although when Dr. Warriner first evaluated 

Barwick he thought that Barwick could be rehabilitated, Dr. Warriner testified that 

after having evaluated Barwick a second time, he concluded that Barwick was a 

psychopathic sexual deviant who was extraordinarily dangerous and incapable of 

being rehabilitated. Dr. Warriner reached this same conclusion when he examined 

Barwick for a third time, this time in connection with the crime at issue in this 

habeas petition. Finally, Dr. Warriner speculated that there were likely other 

episodes of escalating sexual violence for which Barwick was not caught.

 

6 Notably, however, the expert that Barwick would have preferred to have been 

presented, Dr. Eisenstein, see infra at 16-19, testified at the post-conviction proceeding that 

Barwick did not suffer from an antisocial personalty disorder at least in part because Barwick did 

not exhibit a pattern of antisocial behavior, and such a pattern is usually necessary to make such 

a diagnosis. On cross-examination, however, the government questioned Dr. Eisenstein about 

the prior episodes to which Dr. Warriner testified to refute Dr. Eisenstein’s testimony that 

Barwick had not exhibited a pattern of behavior sufficient to justify an antisocial-personalitydisorder diagnosis. So, while these incidents of prior sexual misconduct might have been 

inadmissible if elicited by the state on direct examination, it is possible that the jury still would 

have become aware of them during the proceedings.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 15 of 42 
[16]

Relevant to Barwick’s second argument—that counsel merely relied on the 

investigation conducted by Barwick’s counsel during his first trial7 and should 

have been able to find an expert to testify more favorably than the experts that he 

did present—is the testimony of Dr. Hyman Eisenstein, proffered at his postconviction hearing. Because it is important to understanding our determination 

today, we summarize Dr. Eisenstein’s testimony in some detail.

Dr. Eisenstein first stated that he had testified in dozens of criminal cases in 

both state and federal court in Florida but noted that he had always testified for the 

defense.8

 He explained that he evaluated Barwick in 2000 and again in 2002—

fourteen and sixteen years after the commission of the crime, during which time 

Barwick had been incarcerated—and administered numerous psychological tests to 

Barwick. Based on his examination, Dr. Eisenstein found that Barwick exhibited 

slightly below-normal intelligence and stronger non-verbal than verbal 

intelligence. He opined that the difference in these intelligence measures probably 

informed Dr. McClaren’s conclusion that Barwick exhibited some brain 

 

7 Counsel, however, did not solely rely on Barwick’s counsel’s investigation during his 

first trial. Counsel appointed Dr. Walker, a psychiatrist, who had not previously evaluated 

Barwick, to evaluate Barwick in advance of his third trial and presented this expert to testify 

during the penalty phase.

8 In contrast, Dr. Annis, for instance, stated that he had testified numerous times for both 

the state and for the defense in these types of proceedings because a “psychologist that got a 

reputation of being primarily [sic] defense or prosecution witness would soon find that judges 

weren’t going to be sending them court orders to do evaluations.”

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 16 of 42 
[17]

dysfunction. In addition, Dr. Eisenstein expressed his belief that Barwick suffered 

from physical brain damage, particularly in the left temporal region. Overall, Dr. 

Eisenstein testified that the results of these tests were consistent with the findings 

of the experts who had previously testified, including Drs. Annis and McClaren. 

Besides testing, Dr. Eisenstein spoke with members of Barwick’s family, 

including two brothers, two sisters, and his mother. Dr. Eisenstein described the 

physical abuse that Barwick and his siblings suffered at the hands of their father, 

the sexually charged and abnormal nature of the Barwick household, and the

emotional abuse that the Barwick children endured as a result of name-calling by 

Barwick’s father. Because of Barwick’s mental deficiencies, Dr. Eisenstein opined 

that Barwick was subjected to additional emotional abuse and was more vulnerable 

to the abuse that he received than his brothers. 

Based on Dr. Eisenstein’s examination and review of available information, 

he diagnosed Barwick with intermittent explosive disorder. According to Dr. 

Eisenstein, this diagnosis made applicable to Barwick the statutory mitigator that 

the defendant could not substantially conform his conduct to the requirements of 

the law. Dr. Eisenstein also testified that he believed Barwick qualified for the 

extreme-emotional-distress statutory mitigator because “somebody with normal 

emotional and mental functioning would not commit such acts,” and “only . . . the 

extreme form of the emotional or mental impairment . . . could explain . . . what 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 17 of 42 
[18]

happened.” Also, although Barwick was actually nineteen years old at the time 

that he committed the crime in this case, Dr. Eisenstein testified that he believed 

that Barwick was actually “functioning at an early-adolescence stage,” somewhere 

between the ages of 11 and 14, at the time. 

On cross-examination, Dr. Eisenstein admitted that he had not asked

Barwick several questions regarding what Barwick remembered about the events 

leading up to the murder, despite earlier testimony that he had tried to collect as 

much information as possible to understand why Barwick committed the murder. 

Dr. Eisenstein also conceded that he had not reviewed Barwick’s trial testimony 

and the confession that Barwick had given police regarding why he committed the 

attack. Moreover, although the trial transcript revealed that Barwick had told his 

brothers that he killed Rebecca because she had seen his face and he did not want 

to go back to prison, Dr. Eisenstein did not ask Barwick’s brothers about this 

conversation. During cross-examination, Dr. Eisenstein also acknowledged that he 

had not reviewed a report prepared by a neurologist who had administered an 

electroencephalogram (EEG) on Barwick in 1986, which showed that although 

there was “some slowing” in Barwick’s brain, it was a “normal neurologic 

evaluation.” Finally, although Dr. Eisenstein believed that Barwick exhibited four 

of the seven criteria that inform whether an individual suffers from an antisocial

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 18 of 42 
[19]

personality disorder, and the presence of only three criteria is necessary to make 

such a diagnosis, Dr. Eisenstein declined to diagnose Barwick with the disorder. 

b.

Turning to the arguments that Barwick advances in this habeas petition, we 

make a few observations. First, we note that both Drs. Annis and McClaren had 

testified for the government at both the guilt and penalty phases in Barwick’s first 

trial, and the record indicates that the state would have called at least Dr. McClaren 

if Barwick’s counsel had not. Accordingly, the testimony that Barwick was not 

insane because he did not suffer from a mental disease or defect sufficient to make 

this diagnosis, that he knew right from wrong, and that he was not under the 

influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, to which Barwick takes 

most offense, most likely still would have been presented, and therefore would not 

have been avoided even if Barwick’s counsel had not called these witnesses.9

We also note that Drs. Annis, McClaren and Warriner testified similarly in 

many respects to the other experts that counsel called, as well as to Dr. Eisenstein, 

Barwick’s preferred expert. For instance, Drs. Annis’s and McClaren’s findings 

regarding Barwick’s intelligence were consistent with those of Dr. Eisenstein. 

Similarly, Drs. Annis, McClaren and Eisenstein, as well as several other experts, 

 

9 Dr. Warriner, on the other hand, did not testify during Barwick’s first trial, and he was 

not on the government’s witness list at Barwick’s third trial, but counsel still decided to call him, 

as part of counsel’s strategy to try to earn the defense points with the jury for being forthright. 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 19 of 42 
[20]

discussed the abuse that Barwick suffered, which was extensively detailed by the 

lay witnesses whom Barwick’s counsel presented, and each of these experts 

testified that the abuse could have contributed to Barwick’s actions. Barwick took 

special offense to Dr. Warriner’s testimony that Barwick was a psychopathic 

sexual deviant and that he could not be rehabilitated, but similar testimony was 

also proffered by two other experts: Dr. Walker and James Beller, a clinical 

psychologist—neither of whose testimony he challenges. 

Furthermore, although Barwick contends that this portion of Dr. Warriner’s 

testimony was harmful and led the jury to conclude that the death penalty was the 

most appropriate sentence, the same testimony arguably could have supported a 

finding that Barwick was unable to conform his conduct to the law, that he suffered 

from a mental disease or defect, or that he was under the influence of extreme 

mental or emotional disturbance.10 Likewise, despite Barwick’s characterization of 

 

10 Although we do not ultimately rule under Strickland’s performance prong on counsel’s 

decision to present Dr. Warriner’s testimony, we do express some concern regarding counsel’s 

strategy. Counsel’s decision to put Dr. Warriner on the stand may have allowed for the 

admission of otherwise-inadmissible evidence, and it appeared to place another unfavorable 

opinion of Barwick before the jury. Cf. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69, 53 S. Ct. 55, 64 

(1932) (noting that due process requires a criminal defendant to be provided with counsel in part 

so that he will not be convicted “upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue 

or otherwise inadmissible”); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 554-55, 106 S. Ct. 2661, 2677 

(1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (stating that the introduction of highly prejudicial, inadmissible 

evidence at a capital sentencing proceeding undermines the validity of the proceeding and 

violates the Eighth Amendment); but cf. id. at 538, 106 S. Ct. at 2668 (Majority opinion)

(concluding that inadmissible evidence does not result in a miscarriage of justice sufficient to 

overcome the procedural default of such a claim when the error did not preclude “the 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 20 of 42 
[21]

Dr. Eisenstein’s testimony, Dr. Eisenstein’s explicit finding that Barwick could not 

conform his actions to the law could have also have led the jury to believe that 

Barwick would not have been able to conform his actions to the law if he were 

sentenced to prison and eventually released and that a death-penalty sentence was 

appropriate. It is difficult to predict the manner in which a judge and jury will 

construe mental-health issues and their impact on a defendant’s behavior; 

sometimes such evidence will be viewed as mitigating, and other times it may be 

construed as damaging. Cf., Suggs v. McNeil, 609 F.3d 1218, 1231 (11th Cir. 

2010) (pointing out that the use of many different types of evidence at the penalty 

phase of a capital case is a double-edged sword). Although it is clear from the 

unanimous jury recommendation that Barwick’s counsel’s mitigation strategy 

failed, we remain mindful of the Supreme Court’s warning that hindsight should 

not affect our interpretation of counsel’s performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 

104 S. Ct. at 2065.

 

development of true facts nor resulted in the admission of false ones”). We nevertheless 

recognize that the permissible range of counsel performance is wide because it is “all too 

tempting . . . to second-guess counsel’s assistance after conviction or adverse sentence.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Although unsuccessful, it seems as though 

counsel might have elicited Dr. Warriner’s testimony in an attempt to establish that, “[t]he 

Capital Felony was committed while the Defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or 

emotional disturbance,” a statutory mitigating circumstance. See State v. Barwick, No. 86-940 

(Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. Aug. 4, 1992) (Sentencing Order) (“Although there was testimony that the 

defendant was a psychopathic sexual deviant . . . . the expert testimony when considered as a 

whole does not establish this as a significant mitigating circumstance.”).

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 21 of 42 
[22]

Finally, a review of the mitigation testimony offered by the experts called by 

defense counsel reveals that it was not as inconsistent as Barwick suggests. All of 

the testimony elicited tells the same basic story: Barwick suffered substantial abuse 

as a child, this abuse affected his mental state, and Barwick’s impaired and 

abnormal mental state contributed to the crime that he eventually committed. 

Usually, habeas relief will not be provided under these circumstances. See Holsey 

v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 694 F.3d 1230, 1266 (11th Cir. 2012).

But even if we were to find a Strickland violation based upon the record 

before us, at this point in the proceedings, that is not enough for Barwick to 

prevail. Now our role is limited to considering whether the Florida Supreme 

Court’s conclusion that there was not a Strickland violation was reasonable. See 

Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101, 131 S. Ct. at 785. Stated another way, our job is to 

determine whether “fairminded jurists could disagree” as to whether the Florida 

Supreme Court’s conclusion was correct, and we are prohibited from upsetting the 

Florida Supreme Court’s ruling so long as that ruling is debatable. See 

Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 664, 124 S. Ct. at 2149. In this case, it is, so, as the 

district court concluded, Barwick’s habeas petition must be denied.

In its decision denying Barwick’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel

claim, the Florida Supreme Court first summarized the testimony proffered by all 

seven mental-health experts and all seven lay witnesses called by Barwick’s 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 22 of 42 
[23]

counsel at the penalty phase. See Barwick IV, 88 So. 3d at 96-99. The Florida 

Supreme Court also evaluated and compared that evidence to the testimony of Dr. 

Eisenstein. Id. at 100. It highlighted two main differences between Dr. 

Eisenstein’s testimony and that of the experts presented at trial: (1) Dr. Eisenstein, 

unlike the trial experts, found the presence of two statutory mitigators (i.e., that 

Barwick acted under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and 

that his capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was 

substantially impaired); and (2) Dr. Eisenstein disagreed with the defense experts

who in fact diagnosed Barwick with an antisocial personality disorder. Barwick 

IV, 88 So. 3d at 100.11 

In rejecting Barwick’s penalty-phase IATC claim, the Florida Supreme 

Court stated that it “has consistently rejected the proposition that trial counsel’s 

performance is deficient simply because a defendant finds an expert, in 

postconviction proceedings, that will testify more favorably for him.” Id. It also 

explained that Barwick was not prejudiced by counsel’s conduct. Id. (“The fact 

that some testimony proved to be unfavorable to Barwick does not undermine our 

confidence in the verdict.”); see id. at 94 (when setting forth the standard to 

establish a Strickland violation, stating that “[a] court considering a claim of 

 

11 There were other differences between Dr. Eisenstein’s testimony and that of the other 

experts, most notably that Barwick was functioning at an early-adolescence stage at the time of 

the murder.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 23 of 42 
[24]

ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a specific ruling on the performance 

component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not 

satisfied”). 

Evaluating this ruling under AEDPA’s deferential standard, we must affirm 

the denial of Barwick’s petition for habeas corpus relief. For one thing, Barwick’s 

arguments here concern mitigation, not aggravation; accordingly, the five 

aggravating factors found to support the death-penalty sentence would remain, 

even if counsel had not presented the testimony of Drs. Annis, McClaren and 

Warriner. And even though Dr. Eisenstein testified to the presence of two 

statutory mitigating circumstances and another nonstatutory mitigating 

circumstance, the Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he sentencer . . . may 

determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence.” Eddings v. 

Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 114-15, 102 S. Ct. 869, 877 (1982). In weighing the 

aggravating evidence against the mitigating testimony of Dr. Eisenstein, the 

Florida Supreme Court identified perceived shortcomings related to Dr. 

Eisenstein’s testimony, including Dr. Eisenstein’s failure to review (1) Barwick’s 

confession to the police, (2) Barwick’s confession to his brothers and his father, 

and (3) the police and sentencing reports pertaining to Barwick’s prior rape case. 

Based on these alleged deficiencies, the Florida Supreme Court reasoned that the 

government might have been able to create doubt as to the reliability of Dr. 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 24 of 42 
[25]

Eisenstein’s professional opinion, had he testified. See Barwick IV, 88 So. 3d at 

100. In addition, the record shows that Dr. Eisenstein has previously testified for 

the defense only. For these reasons, we cannot conclude there is a reasonable 

probability that the jury would have afforded Dr. Eisenstein’s testimony much, if 

any, weight—at least not sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome.

Based upon the events and facts of this case, the fact that the aggravating 

circumstances would have still greatly outweighed any mitigating circumstances,

and a unanimous jury recommendation, we cannot say that the Florida Supreme 

Court was unreasonable when it determined that its confidence in the sentence 

imposed was not undermined by any alleged deficient performance by Barwick’s 

counsel.

2. Failure-to-Impeach Claim

Next, Barwick contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the 

guilt phase of his trial when he failed to impeach state witness Suzanna Capers. 

At trial, Capers had testified that when she observed Barwick, she felt suspicious,

worried and uneasy:

And I saw him a couple of times, two or three or four 

times and I started getting suspicious, I never saw him 

come back around until later, a little while later he was 

walking in front where I was straight ahead of him and he 

stood there and he just kind of started and I thought, here 

I am laying out and by myself and I started getting a little 

worried and he just stood there and stared at me and then 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 25 of 42 
[26]

he started pointing, he pointed at me, he pointed like this, 

toward her apartment where he was standing and he did it 

a few times, this [g]esture (indicating) and then I started 

getting suspicious, really started feeling uneasy and then 

he turned around and walked back toward her apartment 

and I was relieved that he wasn’t standing there staring at 

me anymore.

Shortly after the murder, though, Capers had provided the following 

deposition testimony:

A. . . . [H]e did a gesture, I mean, not toward me but he 

did like this. He pointed this way to his left, then he 

pointed to his right, just like that.

Q. He did?

A. Yeah. It’s like he didn’t, like he couldn’t make up his 

mind which way he wanted to go. And he saw that I saw 

him and like got embarrassed that I saw him looking at 

me. And so then he started going toward Russ Lake 

Drive.

***

Mr. Harper: Let me interrupt here just to ask a question. 

When he was standing there pointing one way with one 

finger and the other way with the other finger, was he 

doing that more or less to himself, in your opinion, or 

was he looking at you and doing it while you were 

watching him –

A. It was kind of like, you know how you will stand 

there telling you to do something to yourself, that’s like 

what he was doing.

Mr. Harper: So it looked like he was talking to himself?

A. Yeah, talking to himself, yeah.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 26 of 42 
[27]

Mr. Harper: He wasn’t making any gestures to you or for 

your benefit?

A. No. That’s not what I saw. He just looked like an 

innocent person to me, I mean he just didn’t – looked like 

he was just looking at a girl laying out, you know what I 

mean?

And she testified at his first trial as follows:

. . . I was reading and I just so happened to look up and I 

saw him standing there staring at me and I just looked up 

and, like, he might have gotten embarrassed or I caught 

him looking at me and he pointed like this, (Indicating), 

and pointed this way in two different directions.

* * *

Q. Was there any kind of menacing gesture toward you?

A. No, sir – well, he just pointed like this, (Indicating).

Q. You didn’t know what that meant?

A. No, sir. I thought it was kind of odd. You know, I 

thought he just stopped and looked, you know; I didn’t 

think nothing of it at the time.

Based on these excerpts, Barwick argues that Capers’s testimony at his third 

trial was inconsistent with her previous testimony and that his trial counsel should 

have attempted to impeach her testimony. Moreover, he complains that the 

prosecution relied on Capers’s more damaging statements during its closing 

argument in the guilt phase of his third trial. The prosecutor stated,

[Barwick] sees the bathing suit clad young lady, 24 years 

old. Obviously decent looking, nice looking. On his way 

back, . . . he sees her. . . . He then plans, I’m going back 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 27 of 42 
[28]

there. He goes back, goes back to the very same spot. 

He then eyes two women who are sunbathing as if to 

select his victim. [¶] Both of them in bathing suits, 

sunbathing. . . . [H]e could have certainly picked the 

unoccupied dwellings to commit a burglary if he just 

wanted to steal something. [¶] . . . Suzanne Capers or 

Rebecca Wendt. . . . [W]hat did Suzanne Capers tell you. 

He stared at me and I got this eerie feeling. It was 

spooky, it was strange, it was creepy. That’s evidence 

you can take into consideration as to how he was staring, 

selecting.

Because the jury was instructed to consider evidence it heard during both the 

guilt and penalty phases when deciding on its advisory sentence, Barwick contends 

that the jury erroneously viewed as aggravating evidence a portrayal of him as a 

“stalking, lurking predator who evaluated possible victims before deliberately 

selecting one.”12

As with his previous IATC claim, to succeed, Barwick needs to show not 

only that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland, but also that 

the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that counsel was not ineffective was 

contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as 

determined by the Supreme Court, or that its decision resulted from an 

 

12 Florida’s capital sentencing statute limits the aggravating circumstances a sentencer

may consider to those enumerated in the statute. Fla. Stat. § 921.141(5). As a matter of Florida 

law,“nonstatutory aggravating circumstances are not permitted in the sentencing evaluation 

process.” Oyola v. State, 158 So. 3d 504, 509 (Fla. 2015) (per curiam).

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 28 of 42 
[29]

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Barwick cannot carry this heavy burden.

The Florida Supreme Court denied Barwick’s IATC claim for failure to 

impeach Capers because it found that Barwick could not show prejudice. See 

Barwick IV, 88 So. 3d at 96. Specifically, the court said, “Barwick’s claim as it 

relates to the penalty phase of trial also is without merit; the jury returned a 

unanimous verdict recommending a death sentence, and there exist five valid 

aggravating circumstances, with minimal mitigating evidence, supporting the 

sentence.” Id. 

Thus, the lack of prejudice related to any alleged deficient performance due 

to the failure of counsel to cross-examine Capers formed the basis for the Florida 

Supreme Court’s ruling, and we are required to pay deference to this determination

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Capers’s testimony was at most tangentially related to 

one aggravating circumstance. To the extent Capers’s testimony constituted 

nonstatutory aggravation, there is no reasonable probability that its omission would 

have changed the outcome of the penalty phase given the unanimous jury verdict 

for death, five valid and weighty aggravating circumstances, and minimal 

mitigating evidence supporting the sentence. It would have barely changed 

Barwick’s sentencing profile. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the 

Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice prong when it

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 29 of 42 
[30]

determined that counsel’s failure to cross-examine Capers did not prejudice 

Barwick.

B. Giglio Claim based on Suzanna Capers’s Testimony

The Supreme Court has made clear that “deliberate deception of a court and 

jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with

rudimentary demands of justice.” Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153, 92 S. Ct. at 766 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, when the prosecution engages in 

these acts, it may form a basis for either overturning a conviction or sentence. The 

Florida Supreme Court accurately set forth the rules of law and standards of review 

that govern the consideration of a Giglio claim as follows:

To demonstrate a Giglio violation, a defendant must 

prove that (1) the prosecutor presented or failed to correct 

false testimony; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony 

was false; and (3) the false evidence was material. 

Taylor v. State, 62 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 2011); Guzman v. 

State, 941 So. 2d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2006). “Once the first 

two prongs are established, the false evidence is deemed 

material if there is any reasonable possibility that it could 

have affected the jury’s verdict.” Davis v. State, 26 So.

3d 519, 532 (Fla. 2009), cert. denied, [561] U.S. [1029], 

130 S. Ct. 3509, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2010). A Giglio

claim also presents a mixed question of law and fact, and 

a reviewing court will defer to the lower court’s factual 

findings if they are supported by competent, substantial 

evidence, but will review the court’s application of law to 

facts de novo. Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766, 785 (Fla. 

2004).

Barwick IV, 88 So. 3d at 103.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 30 of 42 
[31]

Barwick argues that the prosecutor violated Giglio because he knew that the 

testimony he elicited from Capers and emphasized at closing at Barwick’s third 

trial was allegedly false in that it differed from the testimony she gave at Barwick’s

first trial and in a deposition she gave nearer in time to the murder. Barwick 

contends the testimony was material “because the jury did not hear the witness say 

she had seen an innocent man walking around the complex, mumbling to himself, 

but instead that she saw a suspicious man who was trying to indicate something to 

Capers or frighten her in some way.” Id. at 105.

The Florida Supreme Court found that Barwick failed to prove that Capers’s 

testimony was false. It stated, “Barwick does not demonstrate that the witness's 

testimony as to the facts she observed has changed, only that Ms. Capers’s 

interpretation of those facts differed between her 1986 and 1992 testimony.” Id.

Under the deferential § 2254(d) standard, we cannot say that the Florida Supreme 

Court’s finding that the statements were not false, nor could they be, because they 

did not concern objective facts that were either true or not true, but rather 

subjective opinions that may have evolved,13 is “contrary to” or “an unreasonable 

 

13 We note that the Florida circuit court granted Barwick an evidentiary hearing in order 

to develop this claim. The state court then made a factual finding that Barwick had failed to 

carry his burden of establishing that Capers’s testimony was false. This factual assessment is 

reasonably supported by the record. And as amended by AEDPA, § 2254(e)(1) provides that “a 

determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The 

applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 31 of 42 
[32]

application of Federal law,” or an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light 

of the evidence presented.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). 

C. Claim Regarding the Rejection of Childhood Abuse as a Mitigating Factor

Barwick also claims that the sentencing judge improperly failed to consider 

nonstatutory mitigating evidence presented at the penalty phase related to the child 

abuse that he suffered. A capital sentencer must consider and give effect to 

mitigation evidence that is presented. See Eddings, 455 U.S. at 114-15, 102 S. Ct. 

at 876-77. As the Supreme Court has stated,

Just as the State may not by statute preclude the 

sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, neither 

may the sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, 

any relevant mitigating evidence. . . . The sentencer, and 

the Court of Criminal Appeals on review, may determine 

the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. But 

they may not give it no weight by excluding such 

evidence from their consideration.

 

convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1). We cannot say that Barwick’s allegations about 

the inconsistencies between Capers’s statements prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that 

her testimony at his third trial was false.

Moreover, even if we disagreed and found that Capers’s testimony was false, that is 

merely the first of the three Giglio prongs that Barwick must satisfy. At the evidentiary hearing, 

Barwick did not call Suzanna Capers to testify but instead relied upon the testimony of Assistant 

State Attorney Alton Paulk, who prosecuted Barwick. Paulk testified that while he recognized 

that there were some differences in the statements made by Capers, he did not perceive any of 

the statements as false but instead attributed the differences to Capers’s impressions of the events 

changing over time. This testimony goes directly to the heart of the second Giglio prong: that 

the prosecutor knowingly have offered false testimony or failed to correct testimony subsequently 

known to be false. Again, this is a factual determination entitled to deference.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 32 of 42 
[33]

Id. at 114-15, 102 S. Ct. at 876-77 (emphasis added; original emphasis omitted).

To support his claim, Barwick relies on a portion of the sentencing order that

states, “The court does not find in this case that the abuse received by the 

defendant as a child is a mitigating circumstance.” The Florida Supreme Court 

found on direct appeal, however, when the sentencing order is read in context, it is 

clear that the judge did in fact consider the abuse that Barwick endured as a child, 

satisfying Eddings’s requirement. See Barwick II, 660 So. 2d at 696. The

sentencing order states,

The Court is obliged to consider any other mitigating 

circumstances that are relevant in determining the 

fairness of a life or death sentence and the Court has 

considered those factors which are set forth as follows:

1. The evidence establishes that the defendant was 

abused as a child by his father and grew up in a 

dysfunctional family. The evidence also established 

that the defendant’s siblings were likewise abused and 

they apparently grew up to be responsible persons. 

Two of the siblings had the unfortunate experience of 

being compelled to testify against their brother. 

While there are doubtless numerous cases where the 

abuse received by children influence their actions in 

adult life and result in or contribute to criminal 

behavior. The Court does not find in this case that the 

abuse received by the defendant as a child is a 

mitigating circumstance.

* * *

The Court has considered and weighed each of the 

applicable aggravating circumstances and each of the 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 33 of 42 
[34]

statutory and nonstatutory mitigating circumstances that 

are established by the evidence or on which there has 

been any significant evidence produced as they relate to 

the murder charge. Further the Court has considered

whether the established facts are such that in all fairness, 

taking into consideration the totality of the defendant’s 

life or character are sufficient to counter-balance the 

aggravating circumstances. The jury in this case was 

unanimous in recommending the death penalty. The 

Court has carefully considered and reviewed all of the 

foregoing as it relates to the murder charge and 

determines that sufficient aggravating circumstances 

exist to support the recommendation of the jury and that 

recommendation is not counter-balanced by the 

mitigating circumstances.

(emphasis added). 

When analyzing Barwick’s failure to consider mitigation claim, the Florida 

Supreme Court wrote that “the judge here recognized that the evidence established 

that Barwick was abused as a child,” which the court recognized as “mitigating in 

nature” and “an appropriate circumstance for the court to consider.” Barwick II, 

660 So. 2d at 696. It also acknowledged that “the trial judge stated that he did not 

consider Barwick’s history of child abuse as a mitigating factor,” but nevertheless 

found that “the judge properly considered evidence of abuse in imposing the death 

sentence.” Id. The Florida Supreme Court emphasized that the sentencing order

stated the trial court had “considered and weighed each of the . . . statutory and 

non-statutory mitigating circumstances that are established by the evidence or on 

which there ha[d] been any significant evidence produced.” Id. “This statement 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 34 of 42 
[35]

indicates that the trial judge weighed the [child abuse] factor as ultimately required 

. . . [and therefore] sufficiently considered the mitigating evidence presented on 

this factor.” Id. As Barwick points out, “extensive evidence was presented at 

Barwick’s penalty phase regarding the abuse he endured at the hands of his father.” 

In light of these circumstances, the relevant question is whether it was 

objectively unreasonable to conclude, as the Florida Supreme Court did, that the 

trial judge considered Barwick’s child abuse as a mitigating circumstance when it 

determined his sentence. Id. Keeping in mind that “[a] state court’s application of 

clearly established federal law or its determination of the facts is unreasonable only 

if no ‘fairminded jurist’ could agree with the state court’s determination or 

conclusion,” Holsey, 694 F.3d at 1257 (quoting Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101, 131 

S. Ct. at 786), we cannot say the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that the trial 

judge considered the abuse is objectively unreasonable when the order is read in its 

entirety, as the Florida Supreme Court did. 

To be sure, the isolated statement on which Barwick relies is troubling to the 

extent it suggests that the trial court may not have given any consideration to the 

child abuse as mitigating because Barwick’s siblings were also abused and “grew 

up to be responsible persons,” or because Barwick’s child abuse did not “result in 

or contribute to [his] criminal behavior.” Barwick II, 660 So. 2d at 695˗96. 

Failure to give any consideration to Barwick’s child abuse for either of these 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 35 of 42 
[36]

reasons would be contrary to clearly established federal law. See, e.g., Smith v. 

Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 45, 125 S. Ct. 400, 405 (2004) (rejecting the notion that there 

must be a specific nexus between defendant’s troubled childhood or limited mental 

capabilities and capital murder before allowing a jury to consider such evidence for 

mitigation purposes); Eddings, 455 U.S. at 114˗15, 102 S. Ct. at 877 (holding a 

capital sentencer may not give relevant mitigation evidence “no weight by 

excluding such evidence from . . . consideration”). And the sentencing order could 

have been more carefully written to remove any ambiguity about the trial court’s 

weighing process. For example, the trial court could have said something along 

the lines of the following: The Court does not find in this case that the abuse 

received by the defendant as a child is a mitigating circumstance sufficient to 

outweigh the substantial and numerous aggravating factors. But it is not 

appropriate for us to rewrite a state trial court’s order or a state appellate court’s 

reasoned opinion when evaluating them under § 2254(d). 

The most that can be said for the sentencing court’s order is that it is open to 

interpretation. That being so, even under pre-AEDPA habeas jurisprudence, we 

must give deference to the Florida Supreme Court’s resolution of an ambiguity in 

the state trial court’s order unless its resolution is not fairly supported by the 

record. See Wainwright v. Goode, 464 U.S. 78, 83–85, 104 S. Ct. 378, 381–82 

(1983). Here, the Florida Supreme Court’s factual determination that the trial 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 36 of 42 
[37]

judge did consider and weigh Barwick’s child abuse mitigating evidence is fairly 

supported by the record and thus entitled to deference. 

Additionally, under AEDPA, we are also obligated to give the Florida 

Supreme Court’s interpretation of the sentencing order the benefit of the doubt. 

See Renicio v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 1862 (2010) (“AEDPA . . . 

imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, and 

demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” (citations 

omitted) (quotation marks omitted)); see also Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301, 

130 S. Ct. 841, 849 (2010) (“[A] state-court factual determination is not 

unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a 

different conclusion in the first instance.”). Because the Florida Supreme Court’s 

conclusion that the trial judge did, in fact, consider Barwick’s child abuse as a 

mitigating circumstance did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts, see 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(d), Barwick’s petition on this claim must be denied.

Finally in this regard, we are also mindful that the Florida Supreme Court

concluded that “[a]ny error in articulating the particular mitigating circumstance 

was harmless.” Barwick II, 660 So. 2d at 696 (citing Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 

2d 730 (Fla. 1994) (per curiam)). We understand the court’s citation to Armstrong

to mean that any error in “the trial judge’s articulation of how he considered the 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 37 of 42 
[38]

mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances . . . was harmless beyond 

a reasonable doubt” because the five valid and weighty aggravating circumstances 

in this case strongly outweigh the nonstatutory mitigation submitted by Barwick 

during his penalty phase. See Armstrong, 642 So. 2d at 739. There is nothing 

objectively unreasonable about the Florida Supreme Court’s alternative harmless 

error analysis based on the record in this case.

D. Claim that Executing Barwick is Unconstitutional Because He is Mentally a 

Minor

Finally, Barwick argues that, while he was nineteen-and-one-half years old 

at the time that he killed Rebecca Wendt, he presented expert psychological 

evidence at his post-conviction proceeding that his mental functioning was 

equivalent to that of an ordinary 11-to-13-year-old person, and his intellectual 

functioning equivalent to that of an ordinary 12-to-14-year-old person. Thus, he 

asserts that “[w]hen one considers mental capacity and level of functioning, there 

is no sustainable rationale for imposing the death penalty [here] . . . and not upon 

the class of individuals outlined in [Roper v.] Simmons[,543 U.S. 551, 568, 125 S. 

Ct. 1183, 1194 (2005)]. See, e.g., City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. v. Cleburne 

Living Center, Inc., et al., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (“The Equal Protection Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 38 of 42 
[39]

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a 

direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”).” 

The Eighth Amendment provides, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor 

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The 

provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furman 

v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 239, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 2727 (1972) (per curiam). The 

Supreme Court has looked to “evolving standards of decency” to guide its 

determination of when the imposition of a particular punishment would be “cruel 

and unusual.” See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01, 78 S. Ct. 590, 597-98 

(1958) (plurality opinion).

In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court held that the imposition of the 

death penalty on those less than eighteen years old would be “cruel and unusual,” 

in violation of the Constitution. 543 U.S. 551, 568, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 1194 (2005). 

The Court rested its holding in part on the fact that several differences exist 

between juveniles and adults. These differences include a lack of maturity, an 

underdeveloped sense of responsibility, a greater susceptibility to negative 

influences and outside pressures, and the fact that juveniles’ personality traits are 

more transitory and less fixed. Id. at 569-70, 125 S. Ct. at 1195-96.

But even if we were to agree with Barwick that sentencing to death one who 

has reached the chronological age of legal maturity but who possesses the mental 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 39 of 42 
[40]

and intellectual capabilities of a juvenile would be unconstitutional,

14 we can grant 

relief only if the state court’s denial of his claim was contrary to or an 

unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. Although the Florida 

Supreme Court denied this claim as procedurally barred, it nevertheless evaluated

Barwick’s claim on the merits, stating,

[T]he [Florida Supreme] Court has expressly rejected the 

argument that Roper extends beyond the Supreme 

Court’s pronouncement that the execution of an 

individual who was younger than eighteen at the time of 

the murder violates the eighth amendment. England v. 

State, 940 So. 2d 389, 406-07 (Fla. 2006). Moreover, the

[Florida Supreme] Court has previously denied relief on 

each of the specific claims raised by Barwick. See Hill v. 

State, 921 So. 2d 579, 584 (Fla. 2006) (“Hill’s third 

claim is that his mental and emotional age places him in

the category of persons for whom it is unconstitutional to 

impose the death penalty under [Roper]. This claim is 

without merit. Roper does not apply to Hill. Hill was 

twenty-three years old when he committed the crimes at 

issue. Roper only prohibits the execution of those 

defendants whose chronological age is below 

eighteen.”). Here, Barwick was nineteen and one-half 

years old when he committed the murder. Accordingly, 

we deny relief upon these claims. 

Barwick IV, 88 So. 3d at 106.

Setting aside Barwick’s procedural default, the district court also addressed

the Florida Supreme Court’s resolution of the merits of his claim:

 

14 To be clear, we do not express any opinion as to the validity (or lack thereof) of 

Barwick’s contention.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 40 of 42 
[41]

The United States Supreme Court has not extended

Roper to mental or emotional age. The Florida Supreme 

Court’s rejection of Mr. Barwick’s claim thus was not 

contrary to “clearly established Federal law, as 

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Dombroski v. Mingo, 543 

F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a state 

decision on an issue cannot be contrary to federal law 

under § 2254(d)(1) if there is no Supreme Court decision 

on point).

The Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of Mr. Barwick’s 

claim also was not an unreasonable application of Roper. 

In Roper, the United States Supreme Court Case drew a 

bright line—age 18. The Court squarely held that 

executing a defendant for committing a crime before age 

18 is always unconstitutional, no matter how mature the 

defendant. A reasonable application of Roper is that the 

bright line works the other way, too—executing an 

individual for committing a crime after age 18 is not, just 

because of age, unconstitutional. Mental or emotional 

age may be a mitigating factor, but it does not necessarily 

preclude the death penalty.

Because the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of this 

claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application 

of clearly established federal law, Mr. Barwick is not 

entitled to relief.

We agree with the district court’s analysis. We note with regard to whether 

a state court’s application of federal law is unreasonable that this Court has 

clarified that state courts are not obligated to extend legal principles set forth by 

the Supreme Court because AEDPA requires only that state courts “fully, faithfully 

and reasonably follow legal rules already clearly established by the Supreme 

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 41 of 42 
[42]

Court.” Hawkins v. Alabama, 318 F.3d 1302, 1307 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, we cannot say that the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion was an 

unreasonable application of federal law when it considered this claim. 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Barwick’s 

petition for habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-11711 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 42 of 42