FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J AN 18, 2 011 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 85 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 10 03 7- CV-J LK DAVID HERNANDE Z, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W al te r A. McNei l, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re PRYOR, MARTIN, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Dav idHern an de z, a Fl or id a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the

di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y as t o “ [w]hethe r it 1 was in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, u nd er Un it edSta te s v . Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. 64 8[ , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 03 9] (19 84 ), fo r ap pe ll at e co un se l t o fa il to ap pe ar fo r or al arg um en t o n d ire ctap pe al of [ Hern an de z’s] stat e-co urt co nv ic ti on .” Ther efo re, ou r rev ie w inth is ap pe al is co nf in edto th atis su e. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 53 (c). Aft er a th or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm . Hern an de z arg ue s tha t h is co un se l ab an do ne d h im durin g acri ti cal st ag e o f hi s p ro ceed in g b y

waiv in g o ral arg um en t o n d ire ctap pe al . See Cr on ic , 46 6 U.S. 2 at65 9, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 47 (“ [A] tria l i s u nf ai r if th e acc us edis de ni edco un se l ata cri ti cal st ag e o f hi s tria l.”) . W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n, b utacco rdde fere nc e to th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on on th e m eri ts of acla im . Davi s v . Jo ne s, 5 06 F.3d13 25 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Flo rid a’s Thi rdDis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s s umm ari ly den ie d Herna nd ez’s cl ai m of

“Pro se pleading s are held to a less stringe nt standard than pleading s draf ted by attorney s 1 and will, there fore , be liberally construed.” Tanne nbaum v. Uni t ed States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). We will not consider Her

nandez’s claim that his appellate counsel also abandone d him by 2 fail i n g t o fi l e a reply brief in his direc t appea l, beca use the district court issued a cer tificate of appea lability only as to whether appellate counsel’s waiver of oral arg ument constituted ineffe ctive assistance of counse l under Cronic. See28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c). 2in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f ap pe ll at e co un se l. “ [A] stat e co urt’s s umm ary reject io n o f

a cl ai m qu al ifi es as a n a dju di cat io n o n t he m eri ts . . . so as t o warran t d efer en ce.” Ferg us onv. Cu ll iv er, 5 27 F.3d11 44 , 11 46 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Ther efo re, we m ay no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f un le ss th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on was “ co ntrary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s,” o r “ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edon anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) ; Dav is , 50 6 F .3dat 1 33 1.

“ A st at e co urt ac ts co nt rary to cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law i f itco nf ro nt s a se t o f fac ts th atare m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m a de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt an d n ev erthe le ss arri ve s ata res ul t d iff eren t fr om

it s p rece de nt .” Su gg s v . McNe il , 60 9 F .3d12 18 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . A sta te co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li es fed eral law wh enit“ id en ti fie s the co rrec t l eg al rul e fro m Supr em e Co urt ca se law b utun reas on ab ly app li es th atrul e to th e fac ts of t he pe ti ti on er’s cas e,” o r whe n i t “ un reas on ab ly ext en ds , or u nr eas on ab ly decl in es to ex te nd , a leg al pri nc ip le fro m Supr em e Co urt ca se law t o ane w con te xt .” Id . (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . In d et erm in in g u nr eas on ab le ne ss , we do no t as k whe th er the st at e co urt d eci de d a n i ss ue co rrec tl y , bu t o nl y whet he r th e co urt’s 3de ci si on was o bjec ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Wrig htv. Se c’y forDep’t o f Co rr., 27 8 F.3 d 1 24 5, 1 25 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . The Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n g ua ran te es ev ery cri m in al de fen da ntth e rig htto effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, b ot h a t tria l an d o n the fir stdi rectap pe al . Evi tt s v . Luce y , 46 9 U.S. 3 87 , 39 6– 97 , 10 5 S . Ct. 8 30 , 83 6– 37 (19 85 ). Norm al ly, to sh ow a v io la ti on of t he rig htto effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, a d efen dantm us t es tabl is h t wo el em en ts . “ Fi rs t, the de fen da ntm us t s ho w th atco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt .” Str ic kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 10 4 S. Ct . 20 52 , 20 64 (19 84 ). In a ss es si ng pe rfo rm an ce, “ a co urt m us t i ndul ge a st ro ng pre su m

pt io n t ha t co un se l’s co nduc t fa ll s wi th in th e wid e ran ge of reas on ab le pro fes si on al ass is ta nc e; th atis , th e d efen da ntm us t o ve rco m e th e pr es um pt io n t ha t, u nd er the cir cu m st an ces , th e ch al le ng edact io n m ig htbe co ns id eredso un d t ria l s tra te gy.” Id. at68 9, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 65 (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . “ Seco nd , th e d efen da ntm us t s ho w th atth e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edth e d efen se .” Id . at 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . Gener al ly, to est ab li sh pr ejud ic e, a d efen da ntm

us t s ho w a “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s unpr of es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Id . at69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 .

4Incert ai n l im it edsi tu at io ns , ho wev er, a d efen da ntm ay est ab li sh in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l wi th ou t h av in g t o p ro ve pre jud ic e. Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. at 65 8– 60 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 46 –4 7; Co nk li n v . Sch of ie ld , 36 6 F .3d11 91 , 12 01 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ). InCro ni c, th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t “ a tr ia l i s u nf ai r if th e accu se d i s d en ie d c ou ns el at acri ti cal st ag e o f hi s tria l.” 4 66 U.S. at 6 59 , 10 4 S. Ct . at 2 04 7. As su ch , “ [p ]rejudi ce i s p res um edwhen co un se l was eit he r to ta ll y ab se ntor p rev en te d fr om ass is ti ng th e acc us eddu rin g acri ti cal st ag e o f th e pr oc eed in gs .” Hay s v . Alab am a, 85 F.3d14 92 , 14 97 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Hern an de z co nt en ds th atora l ar gu m en t o n d ire ctap pe al was acri ti cal st ag e of hi s tria l. We dis ag ree. As th e Nin th Cir cu itha s ex pl ai ne d, “ [t]he co nc lu si on th atora l ar gu m en t . . . [is ] no t [a ] cri ti cal st ag e[ ] refle ct s the factth atth e fai lu re . . . to ap pe ar atora l ar gu m en t d oe s n otpre ve ntrev ie w of t he is su es rai se d o n ap pe al .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Birtl e, 79 2 F .2d84 6, 8 48 (9t h C ir. 1 98 6) . As su ch ,

“ [t]he fai lu re o f co un se l t o app ear a t o ral arg um en t . . . is no t s o e ss en ti al to th e fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s o f th e ap pe ll at e p ro ces s as to warran t ap pl ic at io n o f a p er s e ru le of p reju di ce.” Id . (ci ti ng Mo rg anv. Zan t, 7 43 F.2d77 5, 7 80 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ), ov erru le d o n o th er g ro un ds by Peek v . Kem p, 7 84 F.2d14 79 , 14 94 & n n.1 5– 16 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (enbanc )).

5W e al so no te th atev enif o ral arg um en t wer e a cri ti cal st ag e o f th e

pr oc eed in g, Herna nd ez h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t h e was de ni edco un se l dur in g t hi s st ag e. “ A pet it io ne r cl ai m in g t ha t h e was de ni edco un se l ata cri ti cal st ag e m us t sh ow tha t h e was ‘ actua ll y or c on st ru ct iv el y

. . . de ni edco un se l b y

go ve rn m en t act io n.’” Hun te r v. M oo re, 3 04 F.3d10 66 , 10 71 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ti ng Bel l v . Co ne , 53 5 U.S. 6 85 , 69 6 n .3, 1 22 S. Ct. 1 84 3, 1 85 1 n .3 (2 00 2) ). Hern an de z’s ap pe ll at e co un se l h adth e o pp ortu ni ty to p res en t o ral arg um en t, b utwaiv edth e rig htto do so . This was “ a st rat eg ic ch oi ce tha t i s s ub ject t o S tri ck la nd ’s pe rfo rm an ce an d p reju di ce p ro ng s.” Id . Norha s Herna nd ez s ho wn tha t the st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li ed Stric kl an d. As th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed , “ Hern an de z’s ap pe ll at e co un se l fi le d a ti m el y no ti ce o f ap pe al an d a33 -p ag e in it ia l b rie f, rai si ng two arg uabl y m eri to rio us cla im s.” Fu rth er, o ral arg um en t was no t re qu ire d b y th e Fl or id a Ru le s of App el la te Pro cedur e. Fla . R. App . P. 9.3 20 (“ On i ts ownm ot io n o r th atof a pa rty, the co urt m ay

. . . di sp en se with o ral arg um en t.”) . Und er the se ci rcu m st an ces , Hern an de z’s ap pe ll at e co un se l m ay ha ve be li ev edth atHern an de z’s cl ai m s wer e su ffi ci en tl y

pre se nt edinth e in it ia l b rie f an d t ha t o ral arg um en t was no t n eces sa ry

or a dv is ab le . See Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 (“ [T]he d efen da ntm

us t o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n tha t, u nd er the cir cu m st an ces , 6th e ch al le ng edact io n m ig htbe co ns id eredso un d t ria l s tra te gy.” (qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ). W e co nc lu de th atth e st at e co urt re as on ab ly app li edCro ni c an d S tri ck la nd in reject in g Herna nd ez’s cl ai m th atap pe ll at e co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r wai vi ng or al arg um en t. Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt the refo re d idno t err inde nyin g Hern an de z’s habe as pe ti ti on as t o t hi s cl ai m , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7