FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 2, 2005 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. 04- 15243 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 1 4 1 5 7 - C V - K MM S T A N L E Y S M I T H , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S C R O S B Y , S e c r e ta ry , D e p a r tm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s , C H A R L E S J . C R I S T , J R ., A tt orney G ener al for the S t at e o f F lo r id 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r2, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

S t anl ey S m i th, a F l ori da pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

hi s ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on, w hi c h w a s br oughtpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. I n 1999, S m i th w a s c ha r ge d by i nf or m a t i on w i th one c ounte a c h of r obbe ry w i th a de a dl y w e apon, a r m e d bur gl a ry of a dw e l l i ng, a nd a tt e m pt e d f e l ony m ur de r . I n M a r c h 2000, a j ury a c qui tt e d S m i th of r obbe ry , f

ound hi m gui l ty of arm ed bu rgl ary, and cou l d n otre ac h a verdi cton the att em pt ed fe l on y m urder coun t . F ol l ow i ng a r e- tri al on the att em pt ed fe l on y m urder char ge, a j ury c onvi c t e d S m i th of

the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of

f e ns e of s e c ond de gr e e a tt e m pt e d f e l ony m urder. T he st at e c ou rtse nt ence d S m i th t o 3 0 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm entfor the arm ed bu rgl ary c on vi ct i on and 1 5 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm entfor the att em pt ed fe l on y m urder c o n v ic tio n , to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly , a n d th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t a f f ir m e d b o th c onvi c t i ons w i thouta w r i tt e n opi ni on. I n e a c h o f

th e tw o tr ia ls , th e p r o s e c u to r , in h is c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts , r e f e rr e d to th e s ta te ’s c a s e a s “u n r e b u tte d ,” a n d S m ith ’s c o u n s e l f a ile d to lo d g e a n o b

je c tio n . I n hi s s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ngs , S m i th a r gue d, i n r e l e va ntpa r t , i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l w i th res pectt o these fa i l ures t o o bj ec t . T he st at e c ou rtdeni ed th is c la im , f

in d in g th e c la im p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d f r o m c o lla te r a l a tta c k u n d e rs ta te l a w. In the pres ent§ 2 25 4 h abea s pet i t i on , S m i th agai n con t ended t hathi s c ou nsel3

w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to o b

je c t to th e p r o s e c u to r ’s c o m m e n ts in th e tw o tr ia ls thatthe st at e’ s e vi dence w as un re bu tt ed. S m i th argued t hatsuch com m ent s w er e i m pr ope rbe c a us e ( 1) the y dr e w a tt e nt i on t o hi s de c i s i on nott o t e s t i f y a nd the r e by vi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o rem ai n si l entun der the F i fth A m endm ent, and, (2) und er F lo r id a c a s e la w , it w a s im p r o p e rf o rth e p r o s e c u tio n to r e f e rto d e f e n s e ’s f a ilu r e to ca l l w i tness es or t o p re se ntt es t i m on y t o rebutthe st at e’ s c as e. S m i th ass ert ed that th e s e c o m m e n ts e n c o u r a g e d th e ju ry to in f e rh is g u ilt th r o u g h h is s ile n c e . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m , f

i ndi ng thatthe cl ai m w as procedural l y def aul t ed fr om fe dera l re vi ew . T he courtre as on ed tha t , be c a us e the s t a t e c our te xpr e s s l y i m pos e d a pr oc e dur a l ba ron thi s c l a i m , the c o u r t w a s b a rr e d f

r o m c o n s id e r in g th e c la im a b s e n t c e r ta in u n m e t c o n d itio n s . W e grant ed a c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty a s t o the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: W hether the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y deni ed S m i th’ s c l ai m thattri al coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o o bj ec tt o, and t hu s pre se rve a ch al l en g e t o , th e p ro secu t o r’ s i m p ro p er rem ark s th atth e st at e’ s case w as “ un re bu tt ed, ” thatthere w as no t es t i m on i al evi dence t o sup po rt the defense , and regardi ng S m i th’ s s i l ence . O n ap p ea l, S m ith ar g u es th at th e d istrict co u rt im p ro p er ly d en ied S m ith ’s cl ai m thattri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o o bj ec tt o, and t hu s pre se rve a chal l enge t o, the prosecut or’ s i m prop erre m arks thatthe st at e’ s c as e w as

“ un re bu tt ed. ” S m i th con t ends thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatthe cl ai m w as4

pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d w a s e rr one ous , i n tha t( 1) the s t a t e of F l or i da w a i ve d the pr oc e dur a l de f

a ul tby f a i l i ng t o r a i s e i ti n di s tr i c tc our t , ( 2) the c l a i m w a s not i nde pe nde ntof

f e de r a l l a w , a nd ( 3) the s t a t e c our ta ddr e s s i ng thi s c l a i m di d not c le a r ly s ta te th a t th e c la im w a s p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d . S m ith a ls o a r g u e s th a t ( 1 ) h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e in th a t c o u n s e l f

a ile d to o b

je c t to im p r o p e rs ta te m e n ts m a de by the pr os e c ut ori ndi c a t i ng hi s pe r s ona l be l i e f tha tS m i th w a s gui l ty of the of f e ns e s , a nd, ( 2) i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 738, 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , h is s e n te n c e w a s im p r o p e r ly e n h a n c e d . W e c o n c lu d e th a t S m ith ’s c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e c o u n s e l is n o t p r o c e d u r a lly ba rr e d buttha thi s c onvi c t i on s houl d r e m a i n undi s turbe d be c a us e of the a bs e nc e of h a r m f u l e rr o r . I . A r e S m i th’ s C l a i m s P r oc e dur a l l y B a rr e d? W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a ha be a s pe t i t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . S e e S im s v . S in g le ta ry , 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . F a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or . I d. U n d e rth e d o c tr in e o f

p r o c e d u r a l d e f

a u lt, “[ i]n a ll c a s e s in w h ic h a s ta te pr i s one rha s de f

a ul t e d hi s f

e de r a l c l a i m s i n s t a t e c our tpur s ua ntt o a n i nde pe nde nt and adequ at e s t at e procedural rul e, fe dera l habeas re vi ew of the cl ai m s i s barre d u n l ess th e p ri so n er can d em o n strat e cau se fo r th e d efau l tan d actu al p rej u d i ce as a5

re sul tof the al l eged vi ol at i on of fe dera l l aw , or dem on stra t e thatfa i l ure t o con si der the c l a i m s w i l l r e s ul ti n a f unda m e nt a l m i s c a rr i a ge of j us t i c e . ” C ol e m a n v. T hom ps on, 501 U . S . 722, 750, 111 S . C t . 2546, 2565, 115 L . E d. 2d 640 ( 1991) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e ha ve s e tf or th a thr e e - pa r tt e s tt o de t e r m i ne w h e th e ra s ta te c o u r t’s p r o c e d u r a l ru lin g c o n s titu te s a n in d e p e n d e n t a n d a d e q u a te s ta te ru le o f

d e c is io n : F ir s t, th e la s t s ta te c o u r t r e n d e r in g a ju d g m e n t in th e c a s e m u s t c le a r ly and exp re ss l y s t at e thati ti s r el yi ng on st at e procedural rul es t o res ol ve the fe dera l c l a i m w i thoutr e a c hi ng the m e r i t s of tha tc l a i m . S e c ond, the s t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on m ustre stsol i dl y on st at e l aw grou nd s a nd m ay no tbe i nt ertw i ned w i th an in te rp r e ta tio n o f

f e d e r a l la w . T h ir d , th e s ta te p r o c e d u r a l ru le m u s t b e a d e q u a te . J udd v. H a l e y , 250 F . 3d 1308, 1313 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he a de qua c y r e qui r e m e ntha s be e n i nt e rpr e t e d t o m e a n tha tthe rul e m ustbe “ fi rm l y e st abl i shed and regul ar l y f ol l ow ed, ” thati s, no tappl i ed i n an a rbi tr a ry orunpr e c e de nt e d f a s hi on. F or d v. G e or gi a , 498 U . S . 411, 423- 25, 111 S .C t. 8 5 0 , 8 5 7 - 5 8 , 1 1 2 L .E d .2 d 9 3 5 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; J u d d , 2 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 3 . T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thatcl ai m s thatcoul d h ave been ra i se d on di re ctappeal ar e procedural l y barre d from col l at er al re vi ew , and cou chi ng such cl ai m s i n t erm s o f i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel fo r fai l u re t o p reserv e o r rai se the m c a nnotbe us e d t o c i r c um ve nttha trul e . C he rry v. S t a t e , 659 S o. 2d 1069, 10 72 (F l a. 19 95 ). H ow ever , a F l ori da appel l at e c ou rthas hel d thatthe rul e s t at edIt a pp e arsthat Smi th f

aile d tofully

e xha us t hi s in e ff

e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l c laim 1 in Florida statecourt, a s the rec ord on appe al does not include a reque st for certification for appeal to the Florida Supreme Court of the F lorida appe llate cour t decision aff

irming thedenial of hispo st- c onvic tio n c laims . H ow e ver, Smit h’ s in e ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l c laim i s without merit, as discussed below, a nd § 2254(b)( 2) provides that an application for a writ of ha be a s c or pu s ma y bedenie d o n th emerits, no tw ith sta ndingthefailureof

thea pp lic ant to exhaust his s tate remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) . 6 in C h er ry d o es n o t ap p ly to ce rtain in ef fe ctiv e- as sistan ce claim s, su ch as co u n se l’ s

“ s i l e nc e i n the f

a c e of a n obj e c t i ona bl e c om m e ntby the pr os e c ut or , ” tha tc oul d not h a v e b e e n r a is e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. K n ig h t v . S ta te , 7 1 0 S o .2 d 6 4 8 , 6 4 9 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) . A d d itio n a lly , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t th e ru le in C he rry doe s notappl y w he r e the unde r l y i ng c l a i m s w e r e r a i s e d a nd r e j e c t e d on di r e c tappe a l be c a us e the y ha d notbe e n pr e s e r ve d f orr e vi e w . P i e tr i v. S t a t e , 885 S o .2 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 6 (F la. 2 0 0 4 ). In b o th K n ig h t an d P ietri, h o w ev er , th e lo w erco u rt’s ju d g m e n t w a s n e v e r th e le s s a f f ir m e d b e c a u s e th e d e f

e n d a n ts f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te pr e j udi c e . K ni ght , 710 S o. a t640; P i e tr i , 885 S o. 2d a t256. H er e, the l as tst at e c ou rtt o render j ud gm entappl yi ng the st at e procedural de f a ul ti n C he rry w a s the c our ttha tde c i de d S m i th’ s pos t - c onvi c t i on m ot i on. 1 T h u s , if th e d e f a u lt d e s c r ib e d in C h e rry is “f ir m ly e s tab lis h e d a n d r e g u la r ly fol l ow ed, ” f

eder al re vi ew i s pre cl ud ed. S ee F ord, 49 8 U . S . at42 3-25 , 11 1 S . C t . at 8 5 7 - 5 8 . I t ap p e a r s h e r e th a t th e s ta te c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f a p r o c e d u r a l b a rto S m ith ’s claim s, th at co u n se l w as in ef fe ctiv e in fa il in g to o b

ject to th e p ro se cu to r’s c om m e nt s on the unr e butt e d na tur e of the s t a t e ’ s e vi de nc e , w a s i nc or r e c tunde rthe7

c l a r i f i c a t i ons i n s ubs e que ntF l or i da l a w . C he rry doe s notappl y t o i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s r es pect i ng un derl yi ng cl ai m s thatw er e r ej ec t ed b e c a u s e th e y h a d n o t b e e n p r e s e r v e d f o rr e v ie w . S e e P ie tr i, 8 8 5 S o .2 d a t 2 5 6 . I t is pr oba bl e tha tS m i th’ s c l a i m s r e s pe c t i ng pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc tw e r e r e j e c t e d on d i rectap p eal b ecau se th ey h ad n o tb een p reserv ed fo r rev i ew ; S m i th rai sed th ese c l a i m s on di r e c tappe a l a c know l e dgi ng the a bs e nc e of obj e c t i on a ttr i a l buta r gui ng f unda m e nt a l e rr or . T he s t a t e ha d e xpl i c i t l y a r gue d the a bs e nc e of obj e c t i on a nd the appel l at e c ou rtaf

fi rm ed w i tho utop i ni on . M oreover, a F l ori da appel l at e c ou rthas he l d tha tC he rry doe s notappl y t o i ne f f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m s tha tc oul d notha ve be e n r a i s e d on appe a l , s uc h a s the one pr e s e nt e d he r e , i . e . c ouns e l ’ s “ s i l e nc e i n the f a c e o f a n o b je c tio n a b le c o m m e n t b y th e p r o s e c u to r .” S e e K n ig h t, 7 1 0 S .2 d a t 6 4 9 . B e c a u s e th e s ta te c o u r t’s p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u lt ru lin g d id n o t r e s t o n a d e q u a te s ta te g r o u n d s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g o f p r o c e d u r a l d e f

a u lt w ith r e s p e c t to th is c la im i s al so erro n eo u s. S ee H arri s, 4 8 9 U . S . at2 6 2 , 1 0 9 S . C t . at1 0 4 3 . In o th er w o rd s, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e r e a c h e d a n d r e s o lv e d th e c la im . B ec au se th e p ro ce d u ra l d ef au ltissu e is r es o lv ed o n th is b as is in S m ith ’s f a v o r , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s S m ith ’s a r g u m e n ts th a t th e s ta te w a iv e d th e d e f a u lt a r gum e nt , the c l a i m w a s noti nde pe nde ntof f e de r a l l a w , a nd the s t a t e c our tdi d not c le a r ly s ta te th e c la im w a s p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d .We m ay a dd re ss t hemerits o f S mith’ s in e ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l c laim, 2 no tw ith sta

ndingthefac t th at th estatec ourt and thedis tric t c ourt

faile d tore a c h th emerits o f t his claim. Fir st, § 2254(a) provides that this Court “shall entertain a n application for

a writ of habea s corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State c ourt only on the ground that he is in violation of the Constitut ion or laws or tre aties of the United States.” 28 U. S.C. 22 54 (a). Smith’ s in e ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l c laim i s a

c laim that hi s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. SeeStrickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Next, the prohibiti on contained in § 2254( d) ag ainst grantingan application for a writ of habea s c or pu s w ithre sp e c t to any

c laim that w a s adjudic ate d o n th emerits in s tatec ourt proc e e ding s, except in cer

tain specifie d circumstances, is not applica ble here bec ause thestate cour t did not a djudic atethi s in e ff

e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l c laim o n it s merits – it impo se d a

state proce dural ba

r. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d); Wright v. Sec ’y for Dep’t of Corr., 278 F .3d 1245, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2002) (holdingthat the state c ourt is require d to rejec t a claim on the merits for § 2254(d)( 1) to apply

and a de cision that does not rest on proc edural grounds alone is an adjudication on the merits). L ast, we ma y aff irm a dec ision of the district court “on a ny adequate ground, even if it is other than the one on which the cour t actually relied.”Parks v. City of Warner

Robins, 43 F.3d 609, 613 (11th Cir. 1995) (holdingsuch in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action). 8 I I . D id S m ith S u f

f e rP r e ju d ic e a t T r ia l a s a R e s u lt o f I n e f f e c tiv e C o u n s e l? S m i th ha s f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h tha thi s c ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o obj e c tt o the p r o s e c u to r ’s c o m m e n ts o n th e u n r e b u tte d n a tu r e o f th e s ta te ’s c a s e p r e

ju d ic e d h is de f e ns e . T o m a ke a s how i ng of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n vi ol a t i on of 2 the S i xth A m endm ent , a pri soner m ustshow thatthe coun se l ’ s per form ance w as d e f ic ie n t a n d m u s t e s tab lis h th a t th e d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e p r e

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L . E d. 2d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ). T o p ro v e p rej u d i ce, “ [t ] h e d efen d an tm u stsh o w th atth ere i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi 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 pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . ” I d. a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2038. S m i th argues thatthe com m ent s w er e uncon st i tut i on al i n thatthey i nfri ng ed9

on hi s r i gh tt o rem ai n si l entand i m prop er l y r ef erre d t o h i s f

ai l ure t o cal l w i tness es o rp r e s e n t w itn e s s e s to r e b u t th e s ta te ’s c a s e . W ith r e s p e c t to p r e ju d ic e , S m ith as se rt s onl y thatthese com m ent s r es ul t ed i n the S t at e e ncou ra gi ng the j ury t o i nfer h is g u ilt f

r o m h is s ile n c e . T h is is in s u f f ic ie n t in th is c a s e to s h o w a r e a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s e rr or , the r e s ul tof the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve b e e n d if f e r e n t. A tthe tw o tri al s, three w i tness es gave consi st entey e- w i tness t es t i m on y a s to S m ith ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e o f f e n s e s o f c o n v ic tio n . T h e w itn e s s e s g e n e r a lly te s tif ie d to th e f

o llo w in g : ( 1 ) S m ith a s k e d tw o p e o p le k n o w n to S m ith f o ra r id e in thei r c ar , for bot h h i m se l f a nd an un i dent i fi ed i nd i vi du al ; (2) the dri ver of the ca r c ons e nt e d; ( 3) onc e i n the c a r , the uni de nt i f i e d i ndi vi dua l pul l e d a gun on the d r iv e r , a n d S m ith d e m a n d e d m o n e y ; ( 4 ) S m ith a s k e d th e d r iv e ro f th e c a rto p u ll o v e r ; ( 5 ) a f

te rp u llin g o v e rth e c a r , th e d r iv e rf le d in to a n e a rb y h o u s e ; ( 6 ) S m ith and t he un i dent i fi ed i nd i vi du al chas ed the dri ver i nt o the ho use; (7) ashotw as f i r e d ( appa r e nt l y by the uni de nt i f i e d i ndi vi dua l ) i ns i de the hous e , a nd ( 8) a r e s i de nt o f th e h o u s e , n o t th e d r iv e r , w a s h it b y a b u lle t a n d in ju r e d . T he e nt i r e ty of

S m i th’ s c a s e i n the f

i r s ttr i a l c ons i s t e d of

the a l i bi t e s t i m ony of S m i th’ s s i s t e r , w ho t e s t i f i e d tha tS m i th w a s f

i s hi ng w i th he rdur i ng the t i m e the of f e ns e w a s c om m i tt e d. I n the s e c ond tr i a l , the de f e ns e of f e r e d no w i tne s s e s or10

e vi de nc e . H a d S m i th’ s c ouns e l obj e c t e d t o the of f e ndi ng c om m e nt s a nd c ur a t i ve in s tru c tio n s r e s u lte d , th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t S m ith m a k e s it im p o s s ib le t o c o n c l u d e th a ta s a c o n s e q u e n c e S m i th wo u l d h a v e f a r e d b e tt e ri n th e two p ro ceed i n g s. B e c a u s e S m ith h a s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t h is c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to o b

je c t to the prosecut or’ s c om m ent s on the un re bu tt ed nature of the st at e’ s c as e pre j ud i ce d h is d e f e n s e , w e a f

f ir m th e d e n ia l o f

h is § 2 2 5 4 c la im . A s to S m ith ’s ap p e lla te cl ai m s that(1) the prosecut or m ade i m prop erst at em ent s i nd i ca t i ng hi s per sonal b e lie f th a t S m ith w a s g u ilty o f th e o f f e n s e s , a n d , ( 2 ) in lig h t o f B o o k e r , h is se n ten ce w as im p ro p er ly en h an ce d , th es e c laim s e x ce ed th e s co p e o f S m ith ’s c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility a n d , th e r e f o r e , w e a r e p r e c lu d e d f

r o m r e v ie w in g th e m . S ee M cI ntyr e v. W i l l i am s, 21 6 F . 3d 12 54 , 12 56 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). AF F I RME D.