FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 12, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 14471 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 8 2 8 - CV - T- 1 7 - M SS W I L L I A M G . H A R G R O V E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A L F R E D S O L O M O N , W a r d e n , A p a la c h e e C o rr e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n , S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , h a v in g c u s to d y o f

p e titio n e r , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l12, 2007)This was Petitioner’s third trial on the charg e of murderinghis ex -wife ’s lover, whom 1 Petitioner found in his ex -wife ’s mobile-home be d. The fir st trial resulted in a verdict of guilty . On a pp e al, t hedis tric t c ourt

of a pp e al a ff ir me d. Ha rgro vev. State , 5 69 So. 2d 44 9 (F la . 2 d D CA 1990)(table ). The trial court, in a c ollateral proce edingunder F la. R. Crim. P . 3.850, there after grante d Petitioner a newtrial. His second trial ended in a mistrial. Thethird trial resulted in a guilty verdic t. On appeal, the district court of a ppeal affirme d without opinion. Hargrove v. State, 754 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d D CA 1999)(table ). Petitioner there after petitioned that cour t for a writ of habe as cor

pus on the ground that his appellatecounsel had rendered ine ffe ctive assistancein failingto challeng e on dire ct appe al the trial c ourt’s re fusal to instruct the jury on his “heat of passion” de fenseon appeal. The cour t denied the petition without opinion. Hargrove v. State, 790 So.2d 416 (F la. 2d DCA 2001) (table). 2 B efo re T JO F L A T , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: In D ec em ber 199 6, a F l ori da j ury f ou nd P et i t i on ergu i l ty of f i rs tdegree m ur de r , a nd the c ourts e nt e nc e d hi m t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e ntw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of pa r ol e f or25 y e a r s . A f

t e re xhaus t i ng hi s s t a t e r e m e di e s , P e t i t i one rpe t i t i one d the 1 di stri ctcourtfor aw ri tof habeas corpus. H i s pet i t i on pres ent ed, am on g o ther c l a i m s , tha tthe pe r f

orm a nc e s of

hi s tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e a tt orne y s w e r e i ne f f e c t i ve u n d e rth e S ix th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e w r it. P et i t i on erthere af

t erfi l ed a not i ce of appeal , and w e i ss ued a cert i fi ca t e of app ea l lim ite d to o n e is s u e : “[ w ]h e th e r. . . ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to a r g u e th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in r e f u s in g to a llo w as p e c ia l ju ry in s tru c tio n w ith re gard t o the heatof pass i on defe nse. ” P etit io n erco n ten d s th at, g iv en th e f ac ts o f h is ca se , ap p ellate co u n se l’ s f a i l ur e t o appe a l the tr i a l c ourt ’ s de ni a l of s pe c i a l “ he a tof

pa s s i on” i ns truc t i ons3

w as obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e und erF l ori da l aw ; consequent l y, he w as deni ed e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l in th e ap p e a l o f h is c o n v ic tio n . W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f a§ 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n d e n o v o . M c N a irv . C a m p b e ll, 4 1 6 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1828 ( 2006) . W e us e the s a m e s t a nda r d i n r e vi e w i ng the de ni a l of a n i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im , w h ic h p r e s e n ts am ix e d q u e s tio n o f la w a n d f

a c t. D o b b s v . T u rp in , 1 4 2 F .3 d 1 3 8 3 , 1 3 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 s ta te s th a t: A n ap p lic a tio n f

o raw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s o n b e h a lf o f ap e r s o n in cust od y pursuantt o the j ud gm entof a S t at e c ou rtshal l no tbe grant ed w ith r e s p e c t to a n y c la im th a t w a s a d ju d ic a te d o n th e m e r its in S ta te c o u rtp r o c e e d i n g s u n l e s s th e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

th e c l a i m– (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as de t e rm i ne d by the S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or ( 2 ) r e s u lte d in ad 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 d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in the S t a t e c ourtpr oc e e di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) . A s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n is “c o n tr a ry to ” c le a r ly e s t ab l i s h e d f

e d e r a l l a w i f

i te i th e r( 1 ) c o n tr a d i c t s aru l e e s t ab l i s h e d b y th e Su p r e me C o u r t, o r( 2 ) c o n tr a d ic ts th e h o ld in g o f aS u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e in w h ic h m a te r ia lly i ndi s t i ngui s habl e f

a c t s w e r e pr e s e nt e d. O s borne v. T e rry , 466 F . 3d 1298, 1305 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . A s t a t e c ourt ’ s de c i s i on i s a n “ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on” of4

f e de r a l l a w i f

i t“ i de nt i f

i e s the c orr e c tl e ga l rul e f r om S upr e m e C our tc a s e l a w but u n r e a s o n ab ly ap p lie s th a t ru le to th e f a c ts o f th e p e titio n e r 's c a s e .” I d . W e h a v e r e

je c te d th e a r g u m e n t th a t as ta te c o u r t m u s t e x p la in its r a tio n a le in o r d e rf o rac la im to h a v e b e e n “a d ju d ic a te d o n th e m e r its ,” h o ld in g th a t ac la im is e nt i t l e d t o de f

e r e nc e unde r§ 2254( d) pr ovi de d tha tthe i s s ue w a s r a i s e d a nd the c our tr e nde r e d ade c i s i on tha tw a s notc ontr a ry t o ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of f e de r a l l a w . S e e W r i ghtv. S e c ’ y f orthe D e p’ tof

C orr . , 278 F . 3d 1245, 1254- 55 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). M oreover, al tho ug h w hether app el l at e c ou nsel w as c ons t i tut i ona l l y i ne f

f e c t i ve i s aque s t i on of

f e de r a l l a w , w he n the a ns w e rt o the que s t i on turns on w he the rc ouns e l s houl d ha ve r a i s e d i s s ue s of s t a t e l a w ( i n the in stan t cas e, o n ap p ea l), § 2 2 5 4 (d ) r eq u ires th at w e d ef erto th e s tate co u rt’s de c i s i on r e ga r di ng i t s ow n l a w s . A l vor d v. W a i nw r i ght , 725 F . 2d 1282, 1291 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( s u p e r c e d e d b y s ta tu te o n o th e rg r o u n d s ) . T o est ab l i sh th atco u n sel w as co n st i tu t i o n al l y i n effecti v e, a p et i t i o n er m u st de m ons tr a t e tha t( 1) c ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt , a nd ( 2) the de f

i c i e nt pe r f orm a nc e pr e

j udi c e d the pe t i t i one r . S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ). O u r r ev iew o f a n atto rn ey ’s p erfo rm an ce i s h i g h l y d eferen t i al ; th u s, t o sh o w th atco u n sel p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y, the pe t i t i one rm us tm e e tthe “ he a vy bur de n” of de m ons tr a t i ng tha t“ no c om pe t e nt5

c ouns e l w oul d ha ve t a ke n the a c t i on tha thi s c ouns e l di d t a ke . ” O bs orne , 466 F . 3d a t 1 3 0 5 - 0 6 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he S up re m e C ou rthas r ec og ni ze d that , t o b e e ff ec t i ve, appel l at e c ou nsel need no tar gu e e veryno n-fr i vo l ou s groun d for appeal , bu tm ay“ se l ec tam on g them i n or de rt o m a xi m i z e the l i ke l i hood of s uc c e s s on appe a l . ” S m i th v. R obbi ns , 528 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 8 8 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 7 4 6 , 7 6 5 , 1 4 5 L .E d .2 d 7 5 6 , 7 8 1 - 8 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . F u r th e rm o r e , th e p r a c tic e o f “w in n o w in g o u t” w e a k e ra r g u m e n ts o n ap p e a l, s o to f oc us on thos e tha ta r e m or e l i ke l y t o pr e va i l , i s the “ ha l l m a rk of e f f e c t i ve appe l l a t e a dvoc a c y . ” S m i th v. M urr a y , 477 U . S . 527, 536, 106 S . C t . 2661, 2667, 91 L . E d. 2d 434, 445 ( 1986) . F orthe pr e j udi c e i nqui ry , w e m us tde t e rm i ne w hether there w as a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul ti n the appeal , as oppos e d t o adi f

f e r e ntr e s ul ta ttr i a l f

ol l ow i ng r e m a nd. C l a rk v. C r os by , 335 F . 3d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 1 2 n .9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he s t a t e c ourt ’ s de c i s i on – tha tP e t i t i one rw a s notde ni e d the e f f e c t i ve as si st ance of appel l at e c ou nsel – res ol ved a qu es t i on of w hatj ury i nstruct i on s w er e prop erun der s t at e l aw . S i nce P et i t i on erhas notshow n thatthatdeci si on w as otherw i se contraryt o, or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, re l evantS up re m e C ou rt pr e c e de ntgove rni ng c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , w e m us ta f

f i rm the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f th e w r it. AF F I RME D.