F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT A pril 2 7, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1269 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-01425 -CV -T W T- 1 REGINALD K. CARSON, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us PAUL THOMPSON, W ar de n, T el fa ir

S ta te P ri son, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A pr il 27, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Reginald Carson, a Ge orgia state prisoner, a ppeals the dist rict court’ s denial of his ha be as c or pus pe tit ion , 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54, c ha lle ngi ng h is l if e se nte nc e fo r2

ag gr av at ed

a ssa ult a nd arm ed

r obbe ry of T hom as Curr

y . C ar son re ce ive d a
ce rt if ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

on whe the r his tr ia l c ouns el w as c onst itu tio na lly ine ff ec tiv e. C ar son, w ho r ej ec te d apr e- tr ia l pl ea of fe r of 25 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t
w itha ct ua lly se rv ing 15 y ears , a rg ue s th at his tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r (1 ) not in form ing Carson that, by proceeding to trial, Carson faced a m andatory life
se nte nc e w ith out

paro le und er

G eo rg ia ’ s r ec idi vis t st at

ute a nd ( 2) not

f ull y inf orm ing Cars on o f the str en gthof the e vid en ce a ga ins t hi m . N o r ev er sib le e rr or h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. A n in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el c la im

is a m ixe d qu es tio n of

lawa nd fact that w e re view de novo. Ba ldwin v. Johnso n, 152 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 8 ). To o b t ai n h ab ea s re l i ef , C ar s o n m

u s td emo n s t ra t e t h at th e s t at e c o u rt ’s
ru lin g “ w as c ontrary

to, or inv olv ed a n un re as ona

ble appl ic at ionof

, c le ar ly established Federal law , a s determ ined by the Suprem e Court .
. . or . . . wa s based
on an un re 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 in the State c ourt proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(d)(1), (2). T his stand ard re quires the appl ic at ionof

f ed er al law“ to b e not

onl y e rr one ous, but

obj ec tiv el y un reas on ab le .” Yarb or ou gh v. Gen try, 124 S.Ct . 1, 4 (20 03 ). H er e, the G eo rg iac ourts c or re ct ly ide nti fi ed

S tr ic kland v
. W as hin gto n, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), as the S uprem e Court decision provid ing cont rolling legal3

au t h o r i t y f

o r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i ms . T o p r e v a i l o n s u c h ac l a i m,

“ pe tit ion er

m ust pr ove both in co m

pe te nc e an d pr ej udi ce by sho w ing that ( 1)

‘ co unse l’ s r ep re se ntatio n f el l be lowa n ob

j ec tiv e standard

of r ea sona ble ne ss, ’ a nd (2 ) ‘ the re is a re as ona

ble pr oba bil ity that, but f or c ouns el ’ s unpr of

es sio na l e rr or s, the r es ult of the pr oc ee din g w oul d have be endif fe re nt. ’ ” Z akrz ew ski v. McD onou gh, 455 F.3d 1254 , 1258 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotin g Chandler v. U nited States, 218 F.3d 1305 , 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2000 ) (e n banc)). Inde te rm ini ng whe the r a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity e xis ts tha t, but

f or
co unse l’ s e rr or s, the r es ult of the pr oc ee din g w oul d have be endif fe re nt, “ [i ] t i s no t
en oughf or the de fe ndant t o sh owthat the e rr or s ha d so m e co nc ei vable e ff ec t on the outcom e of the procee ding .” Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2067. Instead, “ [a]
re as ona ble pr oba bil ity is a pr oba

bil ity suf fi ci en t t o un de rm ine c onf ide nc e in the out co m e. ” I d. a t 20 68. I f w e ar e co nvi nc ed that this e le m en t c an not

be established, we do no t have to discus s whether c ouns el’ s perform ance w as obj ec tiv el y

unr ea sona

ble
. I d. a t 20 69; se e al so W at er s v. T hom as , 46 F
. 3d 1 506, 1510 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5) ( enbanc ) (e xpl ai nin g th at w e m ay de cl ine to ad dr es s
w he the r co unse l’ s pe rf

orm an ce w as unr ea sona

ble w he n th e pr ej udi ce e le m en t of Strickland cannot be satisfied).B e c a

u s e C ar s o nh a d

s e v e r a l p r i o r f

e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a c o n v i c t i o nf

o r ar m e d r o b b e r y, 1 he wa s su bje c t to re c idi vis t puni sh me nt of a mand ator y lif e se nte nc e wi tho ut the po ssi bil ity of pa ro le purs ua nt t o G a . Co de Ann. §§ 17 -1 0- 6. 1; 1 7- 10 -7 . Ca rs on ’s la wye r a dv ise d Cars on of

the po ssi bil ity of re ceivinga life se ntence ; but he did not tell C arson that a l i fe sentenc e wa s mandatory or that Carson would be ine ligible f or par ole. Carson had r ece ived a letter fr o m his nephew, who knew Curr y , indicatingthat Curry

did not 2 want to par

ticipate in the ca se ag ainst Carson. Curry eventua lly

did testify

at Carson’s tria l. 4 W e fi rs t a ddr es s C ar son’ s a sse rt ionthat hi s tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o te ll Cars on tha t, by r ej ec tin g th e St at e’ s pl ea of fe r an d pr oc ee din g to trial, Carson wa s subject to a m andatory life sentence w ithou t parole. A fter a 1
care ful consideration o f the re cord, w e conclude that Carson has not dem onstrated
a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that, but f or his tr ia l c ouns el ’ s e rr or , he w oul d have
ac ce pte d th e St at e’ s of

fe r to p le ad

gui lty
. S ee Co ult er

v. H er ri ng, 60 F
. 3d 1 499, 15 04 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Car son was charged w ith threatening to cut Thom as Curry with a knife, str iki ng h im

r ep eate dly

w ithapie ce of

m et al , a nd r obbi ng C ur

ry of his sho es , w al le t, a nd m one y . T he r ec or d sh ow s th at Cars on w as a w ar e -- be fo re the
expir at ionof

the S ta te ’ s pl ea

of fe r -- that the S ta te w as havin g tr oubl e loc at ing Curr y ( fo r Curr y to te sti fy a ga ins t C ar son) a nd tha t C ar son be lie ve d th at the S ta te had “ no case” w ithou t Curry ’ s testim ony . The r ecord also contains evidence that Carson believed that, even if Curry could be located, he did not want to testify ag ai nst Cars on. T he re fo re , in the li ght of Cars on’ s aw ar en es s th at

Curr y m ay not 2Cars on a sse rt s that, be c a us e he atte mpt e d to a c c e pt t he State ’s ple a

of fe r at th e sta

rt of his tr ia l, 3 the evidenc e shows that Carson would have timely acc epted the ple a off

er if he had known e arlier about the mandatory

sentenc e. B ut -- sig nificantly -- Curry was located be fore the start of Car son’s trial; and Carson lea

rned a bout the mandatory

sentenc e that he f

ace d afte r he a

nnounced to the tr ial c ourt that he wa

nte d to a c c e pt t

he State ’s e arl ie r p le a

of fe r. An d w e are no t pe rs ua de d, ba se d o n th is rec ord, by Carson’s assertions that a re asonable probability exis ted that he would have ac cepte d the plea offe r based on (1) the disparity betwee n the plea of fer and Carson’ s sentence and (2) Carson’s purported a

war eness, as a recidivist, of the leng th of time -- be tween his re jection of the ple a off

er an d th e s t arto f

h i s tr i a l - - f

o r th e S t at e t o l o c at e C ur

r y. Cars on c la ime d to have be e n d

ri nk ingaro un d th e tim e of his state me nt. 4 5 testify at trial, Car son has n ot dem onstrated that a reasonable probabilityexisted that, but for Carson’ s lawy er’ s failure to inform Car son of the m andatory sentence Carson fac ed if found guil ty after trial, Car son would h ave acc epted the plea offer
. 3 W e tur

n to Cars on’ s c la im

that, but f or his law y er ’ s f

ai lur e to a dvi se Cars on of th e St at e’s ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im , Cars on wou ldha ve acce pt edth e p le a o ffer
. Ca rs o n s p ec i fi ca l l y n o t es th at h i s l aw yer f ai l ed t o d i s cu s s wi t h h i m

th e S t at e’s DN A e vidence -- that blood foun d on Carson’ s clothin g worn the day that Curry
w as a tta ck ed

c ont ai ne d C ur

ry ’ s D N A - - an d f

ai le d to pla

y f or Cars on the r ec or din g of Car son’s statem ent to pol ice. 4 Carson had told po lice that the bloodon his clot hing wa s his own; and when Cars on r ej ec te d th e St at e’ s pl ea of fe r, he w as a w ar e that po lic e ha d se iz ed his blo od- spa tte re d c lothin g to pe rf orm D N A te sti ng. I n a ddi tio n, Ca rs on h as not shown th at

he w as pr ej udi ce d by

his law y er ’ s f

ai lur e to p lay

f or him the r ec or din g6

of Cars on’ s own st at em en t t o th e pol ic e. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t,
ev enif Cars on’ s law y er

ha d di sc uss ed

a ll thi s e vid en ce w ithCars on b ef or e the ple a of fe r ex pir ed , the r ec or d do es not sho war ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that C ar son would have acce pted the plea offer because the availability of Curr y ’ s testim ony

-- the strongest evi dence against Carson -- wa s still un certa in at that tim e. T herefor e, Carson has not sho wn a reasonable probabilitythat, but for his law y er’ s alleged
erro r, he wou ldha ve acce pt edth e p le a o ffer
. Th e e v i d en ce i n th e r ec o rd d o es n o ts up p o rt a f i n d i n g th at th e s t at e c o u rt ’s de ci sio n w as c ontrary

to, or a n un re as ona

ble appl ic at ionof

, S tr ic kland o r that the state c ourt’ s c onc lus ion s w er e ba se d ona n un re as ona ble de te rm inatio n of

the fa ct s. W e af

fi rm the de nia l of

Cars on’ s 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54 p et iti on. AFFIR MED.