FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 5, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

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

________________________ N o. 05- 14460 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 1 4 1 9 7 - C V - K MM M A R T I N G . C H E S T N U T , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S M C D O N O U G H , S e c r e ta ry , F lo r id a D e p a r tm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s , C H A R L I E C R I S T , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 5, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We granted a cer tificate of appealability

as to these two issues only . 1 2 A ppe l l a ntM a r t i n G . C he s tnut( “ C he s tnut ” ) , aF l or i da s t a t e pr i s one rs e rvi ng a 270- m onth s e nt e nc e f ors e xua l ba tt e ry on a pe r s on 12 y e a r s of a ge orol de rbut l e s s tha n 18 y e a r s ol d, pr oc e e di ng p ro se , c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of h i s p ro se f

e d e r a l h ab e a s p e t i t i o n , b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . On ap p e a l, C h e s tn u t a r g u e s th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to o b

je c t o n h e a r s a y g r o u n d s to the i na dm i s s i bl e t e s t i m ony of the vi c t i m ’ s m othe r , the vi c t i m ’ s f r i e nd, a nd a pe di a tr i c nur s e f

a l l s be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s , w a s de f i c i e nt pe r f or m a nc e , a nd w a s a vi ol a t i on of hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . C he s tnuta l s o a r gue s tha ttr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e w h ile c r o s s - e x a m in in g th e v ic tim b y “o p e n in g th e d o o r ” to h ig h ly prej ud i ci al and o therw i se i nadm i ss i bl e e vi dence of uncharged col l at er al se xu al m is c o n d u c t. 1 We r e v i e w de no vo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on a s t o w he the rthe s ta n d a r d f

o rg r a n tin g a § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n h a s b e e n m e t. V an P oyck v. Flori da D ep’t o f C o rrs. , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W h e r e a s ta te p r is o n e r ’s c la im ha s be e n a dj udi c a t e d on the m e r i t s i n s t a t e c our t , f e de r a l c our t s m a yonl y gr a nt habeas re l i ef

w here the st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on “ w as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the3

S u p r e m e C o u r t o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s ,” o r“w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rt p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) .

“ T he ‘ c ontr a ry t o’ a nd ‘ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on’ c l a us e s of § 2254( d) ( 1) ar e s epar at e bas es for r evi ew i ng a s t at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on s. ” P utnam v . H e ad , 268 F . 3d 1223, 1241 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 529 U . S . 362, 404- 05, 1 2 0 S . C t. 1 4 9 5 , 1 5 1 9 , 1 4 6 L . E d . 2 d 3 8 9 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . A s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n is

“ contra ryt o” fe dera l l aw i f ( 1) the courtarri ves a ta c on cl usi on op po si t e t o that re ac hed b y the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rton a quest i on of l aw , or (2) the court confront s f

ac t s thatar e “ m at er i al l y i nd i st i ng ui shabl e” fr om re l evantS up re m e C ou rt p r e c e d e n t , b u ta rr i v e s a ta n o p p o s i t e r e s u l tf r o m th a ta rr i v e d a tb y th e Su p r e me C o u r t. I d. A n “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ” o f f e d e r a l la w o c c u r s w h e n th e s ta te c our te i the r( 1) c orr e c t l y i de nt i f i e s the l e ga l rul e f

r om S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de ntbut u n reaso n ab l y ap p l i es th e ru l e t o th e fact s o f th e case, or (2 ) “ u n reaso n ab l y ex t en d s, or un re as on abl y dec l i nes t o ext end, a l egal pri nci pl e f rom S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw t o a new cont ext . ” I

d. I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the i s s ue be f or e us i s notw he the rthe s t a t e tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c our t s ’ de c i s i ons w e r e “ c ontr a ry t o” f e de r a l l a w , butw he the rthe deci si on s w er e “ un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on s” of fe dera l l aw . T he cl ea rl y e st abl i shed4

f e de r a l l a w on thi s i s s ue i s the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 10 4 S . C t . 20 52 , 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ). U nd er Str i c kland , f

ora m ova ntt o de m ons tr a t e w he the rc ouns e l ha s pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance , he m ustshow bo th (1) defi ci entperf orm ance by coun se l and (2) a re as on abl e probabi l i ty thatcoun se l ’ s def i ci entperf

orm ance af

fe ct ed the tri al o u tc o m e . I

d. a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064. A s t o the pe r f or m a nc e pr ong, the re as o n ab len es s o f c o u n se l’ s p er fo rm an ce is to b e e v alu ated fr o m co u n se l’ s pe r s pe c t i ve a tthe t i m e of the a l l e ge d e rr ora nd i n l i ghtof a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s , a nd th e s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w is h ig h ly d e f

e r e n tia l. I

d. a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . M oreover, the defendantbear s the bu rden of prov i ng thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as un re as on abl e und erprevai l i ng profes si on al no rm s a nd thatthe chal l enged a c tio n w a s n o t s o u n d s tr a te g y . I d. a t 6 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 - 6 5 . A s t o th e p rej u d i ce p ro n g , “ [t ] h e d efen d an tm u stsh o w th atth ere i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” I d. at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . In other w or ds , “ [ a ] n e rr orby c ouns e l , e ve n i f pr of e s s i ona l l y unr e a s onabl e , doe s not w a rr a nts e tt i ng a s i de the j udgm e ntof a c r i m i na l pr oc e e di ng i f the e rr orha d no ef fe cton the j ud gm ent . ” I d. a t 6 9 1 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 6 . “A r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility i s aprob abi l i ty s uffi ci entt o u nd erm i ne confi dence i n the ou t com e. ” I d. a t694, 1045

S . C t . a t2068. W e ha ve not e d tha tboth thi s C our ta nd the S upr e m e C our t“ ha ve sa i d thatstra t egi c c ho i ce s a re ‘ vi rtual l y unchal l engeabl e. ’ ” P rove nzan o v. S i n g l eta ry , 148 F . 3d 1327, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e ha ve f ur the re xpl a i ne d tha tthi s i s e s pe c i a l l y s o “ w he r e thos e de c i s i ons w e r e m a de by experi ence d cri m i nal defe nse c ou nsel . ” I d. A s s um i ng ar

gue ndo th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly d e f i c i e n tf o rf a i l i n g t o o b

j e c tt o a l l e g e d h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y , C h e s tn u tc a n n o ts h o w, abse ntthe al l eged hears ayt es t i m on y, thatthere w as a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty that th e tr ia l’s o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. See Str i c kland , 466 U . S . a t694, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . T he j ury heard det ai l ed t es t i m on y f rom the vi ct i m on di re ct e xa m i na t i on ( 1) i de nt i f

y i ng the de f

e nda nta s C he s tnut , a nd ( 2) s t a t i ng tha tC he s tnut h a d o n tw o s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s in s e r te d h is f in g e rin s id e h e rv a g in a . T h e v ic tim al so t es t i fi ed, ov ertri al coun se l ’ s hea rs ayobj ec t i on , thatshe had t ol d a nu rs e that C h e s tn u t h a d p u t h is f

in g e rin s id e h e rv a g in a , a n d th a t th e n u r s e h a d s u b s e q u e n tly c onduc t e d a phy s i c a l e xa m i na t i on. R egar di ng C hestnu t ’ s c l ai m thattri al coun se l re nd er ed i neff ec t i ve as si st ance dur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on by a l l ow i ng i n othe rw i s e i na dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e of c o lla te r a l c r im e s , w e c o n c lu d e f r o m th e r e c o r d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin fi nd i ng thatthe st at e tri al and app el l at e c ou rt s’ rul i ng s thatcoun se l ’ s dec i si on w as6

a r e a s onabl e t a c t i c a l de c i s i on di d notc ons t i tut e a n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw . T he st at e tri al courthel d an ext ensi ve evi dent i ary he a r i ng dur i ng w hi c h tr i a l c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d t o the f

ol l ow i ng: ( 1) he ha d 44 y e a r s of e xpe r i e nc e a s a c r i m i na l de f e ns e a tt orne y , ( 2) he ha d tr i e d on a ve r a ge 30 or40 tr ia ls p e ry e a r , a n d ( 3 ) h e th o u g h t it w a s im p o r ta n t to c r o s s - e x a m in e th e v ic tim in order t o att ac k h ercr edi bi l i ty a nd di sc re di ther t es t i m on y. G i ven that , un der Str i c kland ’ s “ pe r f

or m a nc e ” pr ong, the s t a nda r d of r e vi e w i s hi ghl y de f

e r e nt i a l , the st at e co u rt s d i d n o tu n reaso n ab l y ap p l y Str i c kland i n f i ndi ng tha tC he s tnutha d not m e t h is b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly d e f ic ie n t. See 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . Con c lu s ion F orthe above - s t a t e d r e a s ons , w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng C he s tnut ’ s § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. AF F I RME D.