FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 13 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1568 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00066 -CV -3-RV ED WARD J. Z AKRZ EW SK I, III , Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us J A M ES M C D O N O U G H , S e c r e t a ry, Fl or ida D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, CHA RL IE CRIS T, Attorney Ge neral of Florida, Re spon de nts -Appe lle es .

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (July 13, 200 6)

Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M:

Fl or ida pr iso ne r E dw ar d Z akrz ew ski appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt' s de nia l of his 28 U . S. C. § 22 54 h ab ea s c or pus pe tit ionc ha lle ngi ng h is d eath s en te nc e. T he district court granted a certificate of a ppealabilityon two issues: “ (1) w hether trial co unse l w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ilure to obj ec t t o st at em en ts m ad e by the pr ose cu tor in c los ing a rg um en t, a nd ( 2) w he the r tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ilure to fi le a m oti on t o su

ppr es s e vid en ce c ont ai ne d inthe hou se w hic h c onst itu te d th e m urder scene. ” T aking in to account the pertinent state court decision s, w e af firm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

I. B ac kgr ound

Zakrzew ski pleaded gu ilty to the first-degree m

urders of his wife , S y lvia, his f ive -y ear- old

daught er , A nna , a nd h is s ev en -y ear- old son , E dw ar d. T he ci rc um stanc es f

or the se m ur de rs , a s r ec ite d by

the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt, inv olv e the se f ac ts: Z a kr z e w s k i a n dh i s w i f

e h a db e e n e x p e r i e n c i n g mar i t a l p r o b l e ms f o r s o me tim e pr ior to the m ur de rs . Z akrz ew ski tw ic e tol d ane ighbor that he w oul d kil l hi s f am ily r athe r than le t the m

go thr oughadiv or ce . O n June 9, 199 4,3

the m orning o f the m

urders, Edw ard ca lled Zakrz ew ski at work and stated that Sy lvia wanted a divorce. During his lunch b reak, Zakrzew ski pu rchased a m achete. He returned to wor k and com

pleted his dailyroutine. T hat ev en ing , Z akrz ew ski a rr ive d ho m e be fo re his w if e an d c hil dr en . H e hid

the ma c h e t e i n t h e b a t h r o o m. Af ter his fam ily

arr ived hom e, Zakrzew ski approached Sy lvia, w ho was sittin g a lon e in the li vin g r oom . H e hit he r at le as t tw ic e ove r the he ad w ith a cr owbar. The testim ony established th at Sy lvia m ay have been rendere d uncons cious as a result of these blows, althoug h not d ead. Zakrzew ski then dragged Sy lvia into the bedroom , where he hit her a gain and strangled h er with rope. Z akrz ew ski the n c al le d E dw ar d in to the ba thr oom to co m e br

ush his te eth. As E dwar d entered the room , Z akrzew ski struck th e boy with the m achete. E dw ar d r ea liz ed

w ha t hi s f

athe r w as doi ng and tri ed to blo ck the blo ww ith his a rm , c au sin g aw ound to his w ri st. F urthe r blo w s c au se d se ve re he ad , ne ck , a nd b ac k in

j ur ie s, a nd r es ult ed

in de ath. Z akrz ew ski the n c al le d A nnaint o th e ba thr oom to br ush he r te eth. Z akrz ew ski te sti fi ed

that he hit

the gir l w iththe m ac he te a s so on a s sh e entered the bathroom . T he State' s expert testified that the blood spatters from Anna show that the girl w as kneeling ov er the bathtub when she wa s st ru ckby the m ach et e. Cu ts were fo un d o n An na 's ri gh t h an d a nd elb ow, co nsi ste nt w ithde fe nsi ve w ound s. T he blo w s f ro m the m ac he te r es ult ed

in A nna ' s de ath. T he e vid en ce w as in co nf lic t a s to w he the r A nnaw as a w ar e of he r im pe ndi ng d eath. Fi na ll y , Zakrz ews ki dra gg edhi s wi fe fro m th e b ed ro om

to th e b at hr oo m . He still was not sure if she w as dead, so he hit her with the m achete. Sy lvia died fr om blunt f or ce inj ur ie s a s w el l a s sh ar p f or ce inj ur ie s. Fo llo w ing the m

ur de rs , Z akrz ew ski dr ove to O rl an do and b oard ed aplane boun d for H aw aii. W

hile in Haw aii, Z akrzew ski changed h is nam e and lived w ithaf am ily w ho r anar el igi ous co m

m une . A ft er

he ha d be enthe re f

our m onth s, the f

am ily happened to watch the television sh ow “ UnsolvedTh e Flo ri da S up rem e Court de c ide d th at th e HA C a g g ra vatin gfa c tor

wa s n ot a

pp lic a ble to 1 Z akrzewski’s wif

e but that the er

ror wa s harmless. See Z akrzewski, 717 So.2d at 492-93.

4 My ste ri es , ” w hic h a ir ed

Z akrz ew ski ' s pi ct

ur e. Z akrz ew ski tur

ne d hi m se lf

in t o t h e l o c a l p o l i c e t h e n e x td a y. Zakrzew ski v. Florida, 717 So.2d 49 0, 490-91 (1998 ). D uring the penaltyphase, the tr ia l c ourt f

ound thr ee a ggr av at ing f

ac tor s a ppl ie d to e ac h m

ur de r: ( 1) Z akrz ew ski w as pr ev iou sly c onvi ct ed

of oth er c ap ita l of

fe nse s ( the co nte m por an eo us m

ur de rs ); ( 2) the m

ur de rs w er e co m

m itt ed in a co ld, c al cu la te d, an d pr em ed itate d m an ne r w ith out pr et en se of

le ga l or m or al j ust if

ic at ion ; and ( 3) the m urders w ere com

m itted in an especially

heinous , atrocious, or cruel m anner (H AC) . The c ourt found two statutory m itigators: (1) no sig nificant prior crim inal his tor y a nd ( 2) the m

ur de rs w er e co m

m itt ed w hil e Z akrz ew ski w as und er the influence of extrem e m ental or em otion al disturbance. Z akrzew ski presented tw en ty -f our non statut or

y m iti ga tor s, e ac h of

w hic h w as c onsi de re d by the se nte nc ing c ourt. Fo llo w ing the pe na lty

pha se he ar ing , the j ur

y r ec om m en de d de ath f

or the
m ur de rs of Z akrz ew ski ’ s w if

e an d so n by

a7- 5 vo te , a nd l if

e in p ri son w ith out poss ibi lity

of paro le f or A nna ’ s m

ur de r. T he c ourt se nte nc ed Z akrz ew ski to de ath for all three m

urders. On direc t appeal, the F lorida Suprem e Court af firm ed Z akrz ew ski ’ s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . Z akrz ew ski the n f ile d am oti on i n st at e 15

co urt f or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f unde r Fl or ida Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 3. 850 an d 3. 951 tha t r ai se d f

ive c la im s, inc lud ing the c la im s c ur re ntl y be fo re us. T he s t a t e t r i a l c o u rtd e n i e dp o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f o n a l l c l a i ms ; t h e F l o r i d aS up r e me Court affir

m ed. Zakrzew ski then filed a 28 U.S .C. § 2254 petition in the district co urt r ai sin g si x c la im s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d r el ie f on a ll cl ai m s, but iss ue d a certific ate of a

ppealabilityon two issues: “ (1) w hether trial counsel wa s ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ilure to obj ec t t o st at em en ts m ad e by the pr ose cu tor

in cl osi ng ar gum en t, a nd ( 2) w he the r tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ilure to fi le am oti on to su pp res s ev id en ce co nt ai ne d i n t he ho us e whi ch co ns ti tu te d t he m ur de r sc en e.” T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt di d no t un re as ona bly ap ply c ontro lli ng l awin de te rm ini ng tha t tri al c ouns el ha d pr ovi de d e ff ec tiv e assistance, bec ause (1) tria l counsel’s f ailure to objec t to closin g argum ent was part of ar ea sona

ble tr ia l strate gy ; ( 2) the m oti on t o su ppr es s th at

c ouns el did

not fi le w oul d have inv olv ed anon -m er ito ri ous cl ai m ; and ( 3) Z akrz ew ski f ai le d to sh ow h e was pre

jud ic edby tria l co un se l’s fa il ur e to fil e th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s.6 II. Standard of Re view

W e re vie wthe f

ina l st at e j udgm en t onZ akrz ew ski ’ s c la im s purs uant t o 28 U. S. C. § 225 4, as am ended by the Antiterr orism

and Ef fective D eath Penalty

Ac t of 1996 (AE DP A) . Section 2254 (d) allows f ederal habea s to be granted for a cl ai m a dj udi cate d onthe m er its in sta te c our t on ly if the state c ourt a dj udi catio n

“ (1 ) re sul te d inade ci sio n th at w as c ontrary

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

ble ap p l i c a t i o n o f

, c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e dF e d e r a l l a w , a s d e t e rmi n e db y t h e S up r e me Court of the United State s; or (2) re sulted in a decision that was based on an unr ea sona

ble de te rm ina tio n of

the f ac ts i n li ght

of the e vid en ce pr es en te d inthe State c ourt proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(d). Fac tual finding s by the state court are presum ed corre ct unless rebutted byclear and convin cing evidence. 28 U. S. C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ).

“ U nde r the ‘ co ntr ar

y to’ c lause , af

ed er al ha be as c ourt m ay

gr an t the w ri t i f t h e s t a t e c o u rta rr i v e s a t

ac o n c l u s i o n o p p o s i t e t o t h a tr e a c h e db y [ t h e S up r e me Co urt] on a

que sti on o f lawor

if the state c ourt de ci de s ac as e dif fe re ntl y than [ the Su pr em e Co urt] ha s onase t of m at er ia lly

ind ist ing uis hable f

ac ts. U nde r the

‘ unr ea sona

ble a ppl ic at ion ’ c lause , af

ed er al ha be as c ourt m ay

gr an t the w ri t i f the s t a t e c o u rti d e n t i f

i e s t h e c o rr e c tg o v e rn i n g l e g a l p r i n c i p l e f r o m [ t h e S up r e me7

Co urt’ s] de ci sio ns b ut unr ea sona bly appl ie s th at

pr inc ipl e to the f

ac ts o f the prisoner's case. ” W illiam s v. T ay lor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 , 1523 (2000).

II I. D isc uss ion
The F lorida courts correctly identified Strickland v. W ashingt on, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S . Ct . 205 2 ( 1984 ), a s th e co ntr oll ing le ga l auth or ity f or ine ff ec tiv e as s i s t an ce o f c o u n s el cl ai m s . Se e Wi l l i ams, 1 2 0 S. Ct . a t1 4 9 9 ; Ma rq u ar dv . S ec ’y fo r D ep t. of

Co rr ec tio ns, 429 F . 3d 1 278, 130 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , c er t. de nie d, 126 S. Ct . 235 6 ( 2006 ). T o pr ev ai l onac la im of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e, pe tit ion er m ust prove both incom

petence and prej udice by showing that (1) “ counsel's represe ntation fell below an objec tive standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “ there is a r ea sona 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. ” Ch an dle r v. U nit ed S ta te s, 218 F. 3d 1 305, 131 2- 13 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( enbanc ) (quot ing D ar de n v. W ai nw ri ght , 106 S. Ct . 246 4, 247 3 ( 1986 ) (quot ing S tr ic kland, 466 U . S. a t 68 8, 694 ; 10 4 S . Ct . at 2064, 2068 )). T he standard governin g counsel’s perf orm ance is "re asonableness u nder pr ev ai lin g pr of

es sio na l no rm s. " S tr ic kland, 104 S . Ct . a t 20 65. “ ‘ T he pur pose of8

ine ff ec tiv en es s r ev ie wis not

to gr ad e co unse l' s pe rf

orm an ce , ’ but

to de te rm ine whether that perform ance f ell within the broad range ‘ of what m ight b e a reasonable approach at tria l.’ ” Mar quard, 429 F.3d at 1304 (quoti ng Chandler, 218 F. 3d a t 13 13) . “ Judi ci al sc ru tin y of c ouns el ’ s pe rf

orm an ce m

ust be hig hly de fe re nti al . ” S tr ic kland, 104 S . Ct . a t 20 65. “ Co urts m ust ‘ ind ulg e [the ] str ong pr es um pti on’ that c ouns el ' s pe rf orm an ce w as r ea sona

ble a nd tha t c ouns el ‘ m ad e al l s i g n i fi ca n td ec i s i o n s i n t h e e x er ci s e o f r ea s o n ab l e p ro fe s s i o n al ju d g m en t .’” Ch an dl er, 2 18 F.3d at 1 31 4 (q uo ti ng Str ic kl an d, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 5- 66 ).

“ [C ] ouns el c an not

be a dj udge d in co m

pe te nt f or a ct ing in a part ic ular w ay in a ca se , a s lo ng a s th e ap pr oa chtake n ‘ m igh t be c onsi de re d so und tr ia l strate gy . ’ ” Id . (quot ing D ar de n, 106 S . Ct . a t 24 74) . C ouns el ’ s c ondu ct m ay be f ound unr ea sona

ble onl y if pe tit ion er

sho w s “ tha t no c om

pe te nt c ouns el w oul d have ta ke n th e ac tio n th at

his c ouns el did

take . ” Marquard , 429 F . 3d a t 13 04 ( quot ing Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1315 ). “ When courts are exam ining the perform ance of an experienced trial c ouns el, the presum ption that his cond uct was r easonable is even str onge r. ” Ch an dle r, 218 F . 3d a t 13 16. T he tr ia l c ourt f ound that bo th o f Zakrzews ki ’s tri al co un se l h ad“ va st ex pe rie nc e in cri m in al de fen se .”The prose cutor said the f ollowing a

bout Z akrzewski’s r elig ious beliefs and inter est in Nietzsche: 2 [A] fac tor of his disturba nce that his own psy cholog ist, Dr. L arson, a dmitted was that [Z akrzew sk i] wa s n arc iss ist ic . H e ha d th e se na rc iss ist ic te nd e nc ies an d h is f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h N i e t z s c h e ' s s u

p e r m an , th e i d e a l s u

p e r m anwh o d e s p i s e s C h r i s t i an i ty.

. . . Af te r h e c ame ba c k f

ro m Mo lok a i and bef

or e he we nt, he wa s f

a sc inate d w ith Nietzsche. Nietzsche de nounces Christianity . In his own words in this writing he re, [Z akrzew sk i] de no un c e s Chri sti anit y . . . . He sa id, “ Chr ist ianit y is a pr ima ry c ulp ri t in p ro pa g atin gthe be lie f t

hat suic ide is a tic ke t to e te rn a l damnatio n. Lud ic ro us . All that' s r e qu ir e d a

re a c ou ple of Ibe lie ve s and

ple a se f orgi ve me . T he B ibl e say s it . This doctrine of e terna l damnation is but another route of egress for spineless fools." That' s surrounded by

Nietzsche philosophy

about the cre ative superman. So, you be sure to we igh his philosophy about Christianity

with whether

or no t h e should be forg iven for a

ppear ing to a cce pt Christi anity in Hawa ii. (R. 15, Ex . 3-X at 1216, 1223-24.) 9 A . C los ing A rg um en ts

Z akrz ew ski c la im s hi s tr ia l c ouns el w er e ine ff ec tiv e fo r not

obj ec tin g to state m en ts m ad e by

the pr ose cu tor

dur ing c los ing a rg um en t, inc lud ing state m en ts that Zakrz ew ski was fa scinated with the anti-Christian wr iting s of Ge rm an phi los ophe r N ie tz sc he . A t the e vid en tiary he ar ing on Z akrz ew ski ’ s in ef fe ct ive 2
a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m, D e f

e n d a n t ’s t r i a l c o u n s e l , I s s a c B r u c e K o r a n a n dE l t o n K i l l i a m, te sti fi ed that, if the y did not obj ec t t o ac los ing a rg um en t, it w as e ith er

be ca use of strategy or a belief

that the com

m ent was not obje ctionable. K illiam testified that he be lie ve s c as es m

ust be w on a t tri al , not

on a ppe al , and p re fe rs not

to m ak eZ akrzewski’s tria l counsel had a lrea dy prese nted t estimony

from six witnesses, including 3 Z akrzewski, about Z akrzewski’s pr ay er life and church attendance afte r the murde rs. In an attempt to preve nt admission of Za krzewski’s notes about Nie tzs che’ s philosophy , defe nse counse l argued that his earlier

questions were intended to s h ow Z akrzewski’s r emorse, not his “r elig ious convictions or be lie fs . It w ou ld be imp ro pe r in my op ini on fo r t he state to g o into t

hat. . . . [W]e' re no t g oin gto argue that to the jury as a m i t i g ator in this case .” The g overnme nt responded that beca use the defe nse had a lrea dy prese nted evidence of Z akrzewski’s relig ious prac tices, it was entitled to pre sent re butta l, whe the r o r n ot t he de fe ns e ult imate ly

c ho se to a

rgue that Zakrz ews ki’s fa ithwa s a mitigatingfac tor to the jury . The trial c ourt overr uled def ense c o u n s el 's o b

j ection and a dmitted Z akrzewski’s writing s -- which ref ere nced Nietzsche and Christianity -- into e vidence . T h e trial court sustained a

defe nse objec tion when the prose cu tor asked Z akrzewski whe ther Nie tzs che’ s wr iti ng s w e re anti -C hr ist ian, but late r a dmi tte d e xpe rt te sti mony abo ut t

his top ic ov e r d e fe ns e ob je c tio n. De fe ns e c ouns e l th e n c ho se to a rgue to the jur

y in cl os ing that D e fe nd ant’ s p os t- of fe ns e 10 ob jecti on s d ur in g c lo si ng arg um en t u nl es s t he ob jecti on is a st ro ng on e. An ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e tr ia l l awy er co ul d s o b el ie ve . About the pr ose cu tor ’ s r el igi ous ar gum en t, K or ante sti fi ed that he did

not obj ec t be ca

use the pr ose cu tio n “ ha d e vid en ce of w ri tin gs [ Z akrz ew ski ] ha d m ad e [in prison] subsequent to b eing broug ht back here to this area and they seem ed relevant to us that y ou’d be a ble to argue that.” During trial, defense counsel had pr es en te d m iti ga tin g e vid en ce that Z akrz ew ski “ em br ac ed the Ch ri sti anF ai th since the offense. ” T he governm ent responded with evidence that before and afte r the offense Z akrzew ski read and copied quo tes from the wr iting s of Ge rm an philo soph er N ietzsche and that Nietz sche's philoso phy is consid ered anti-Christian. D efense c ouns el tim ely objec ted to the adm issio n of this evid ence, b u tt h e o b je ct i o n wa s o v er ru l ed b ec au s e t h e d ef en s e h ad p l ac ed Za krz ew s k i ’s re lig iou s be lie fs a t i ssu e. A n ob j ec tiv el y r ea sona ble tr ia l l awy er

c oul d have 3embra ce of the Christian faith was a

mitigatingfac tor. Def endant a rgues that it was objec tivel y unrea sonable for trial counsel not to object to the 4 prosec uto r’ s cl o s i n gargument about Def endant’ s relig ious beliefs in the lig ht of Daw son v. Delaw are , 112 S.Ct . 1093 (1992), whic h held that it w as constitutional e rror to admit evidence that the def endant wa s a member

of the Aryan Br otherhood during a penalty hear ing where that evidenc e pr ov e d o n l y a

b s tr a c t b e l i e f

s th at h a d n o r e l e v a

n c e t o th e i s s u e s b e i n g d e c i d e d . D aw s o nis e a sil y dis t i n gu ished from this case beca use the Court in Daw son said the evidenc e would have been admissible if it had been r eleva nt to rebut mitigatingevidenc e offer ed by the def endant. See 112 S.Ct . at 1098-99. 11 co nc lud ed

that an ob

j ec tio n to the pr ose cu tor ’ s c los ing a rg um en t a bout D ef en dant’ s r el igi ous be lie fs w as not the thi ng t o do giv enthe se c ir cu m stanc es . Zakrzew ski has failed to sho w that c ouns el’ s not ob j ecting to the contest ed state m en ts d

ur ing c los ing a rg um en t w as ac our se no c om pe te nt c ouns el w oul d ha ve take n. I n a ddi tio n, r ev ie wof the e nti re pe na lty

pha se sho w s th at

de fe nse 4
co unse l pr es en te d su

bst an tia l m iti ga tio n th ro ugh lay a nd e xpe rt

w itn es se s, pr es en te d atho ro ugh pe na lty pha se c los ing a rg um en t tha t w as r es pons ive to the ide nti fi ed pr ose cu tor ia l c om

m en ts, a nd o bj ec te d and m ove d f or am istri al in re spon se to oth er

c los ing a rg um en t. W e co nc lud e tha t the state c ourts r ea sona bly de te rm ine d th at , c onsi de ri ng the appl ic ab le f ed er al law , Z akrz ew ski f

ai le d to sho w tha t tri al c ouns el ’ s no t ob j ec tin g to the pe rt ine nt c los ing c om m en ts w as de fi ci en t p e r f o rma n c e . We a f

f i rm th e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ' s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m.12 B. Failure to Move to Suppress Evidence

Z akrz ew ski a rg ue s hi s tr ia l c ouns el w er e ine ff ec tiv e be ca

use the y did not m ove to supp re ss e vid en ce f ro m the m ur de r sc en e tha t w as dis co ve re d in sid e Z akrz ew ski ’ s ho use dur ing aw ar rantl es s se ar cha nd l at er

se iz ed pur suant t o a w ar rant. Z akrz ew ski a rg ue s th e ini tia l se ar chdid not f it an y e xc ep tio n to the warra nt req ui rem en t an d t ha t t he fru it s o f th atsea rch were t he refo re s up pr es si bl e. To obtain relief wher e an ineff ective assistance claim

is based on trial couns el's failure to file a tim ely

m otion to supp ress, a petitioner m ust prov e (1) that co unse l' s r ep re se nta tio n f el l be lowa n ob

j ec tiv e standard

of r ea sona ble ne ss, ( 2) tha t the F ourth A m en dm en t c la im is m er ito ri ous, a nd ( 3) that the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that the ve rd ic t w oul d have be endif fe re nt a bse nt the e xc lud ab le ev ide nc e. K im

m el m anv. Mo rr iso n, 477 U . S. 365 , 375 , 106 S . Ct . 257 4, 258 2- 83 (1 98 6) . Z akrz ew ski ’ s tr ia l c ouns el te sti fi ed that the y c hose not

to fi le am oti on t o supp re ss b ec au se the y

be lie ve d th e w ar

rantl es s se ar chw as sup porte d by e xig en t ci rc um stanc es a nd tha t f

ili ng the m oti on w oul d be f uti le : the pos iti on t ak enby theSee Mince y v. Arizona, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 (1978) (“We do not question the rig ht of the police 5 to respond to em er gen cy situations. Numerous state and f eder al ca ses have rec og nized that the Four th A mendment does not bar police office rs from makingwar rantless e ntries and se arc hes whe n they rea sonably

believe that a per son within is i n need of immediate aid.”) . 13 state c ourt l at er . A n ob

j ec tiv el y r ea sona ble law y er

c oul d have c hose n to f

ile no 5
m otion to supp ress. The warrantless sear ch wa s conducted b y De putyRobert Ba cz ek f our day s a ft er

the m ur de rs . T he D ep uty

r es pond ed

to a ca ll fr om Z akrz ew ski ' s A ir

F or ce S er ge an t - - Z akrz ew ski w as se rv ing in the A ir F or ce a t the pe rt ine nt t im e -- w ho b ec am e co nc er ne d w he n Z akrz ew ski did not sho wup f

or cl as s an d c ou ld no t b e lo cat edby call in g h is ho m e, th e h os pi ta l, o r th e p ol ic e. D ur ing a n in spe ct ionof

Z akrz ew ski ’ s ho use e xte ri or , the D ep uty f ound se ve ral da y s’ accu m

ul at io n o f m ai l an d a bro ke n wi nd ow co ve redby a scre en . T he D ep uty

te sti fi ed he f ound thi s su spi ci ous an d “ fe ar ed f or the w el fare of
w hom ev er

m ay ha ve be enin the hou se a t tha t t im e, thi nki ng tha t the re m ay ha ve been a burglary , the f

am ily m ay have been on vacation, or som ething li ke that.” T he D ep uty

a nnounc ed

his pr es en ce be fo re and i m m ed ia te ly a ft er e nte ri ng the re sid en ce thr oughthe br oke n w ind owa nd m ove d qu ic kly f ro m r oom to ro om loo kin g f or inj ur ed r es ide nts a nd p er

pe tr at or s. A ft er

dis co ve ri ng the de ad

bod ie s, the D ep uty

c om ple te d apr el im inary

sw ee p of the hou se to en sur e the pe rp etrator wa s not present. O nce backup arrived, the officer s briefly conducted a full sweepThe district cour t also found t hat a rea sonable lawy er could have concluded that filing a motion 6 to suppress was f

utile beca use (1) Z akrzewski had abandone d his house and its contents, makingany expectation of privacy

unrea sonable, see Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 698 (1960), United States v. Winchester , 916 F.2d 601, 602 (11th Cir. 1990); and (2) discovery of the dead bodie s was inevitable. We a g ree . By the time the Deputy sear ched the house, Z akrzewski had alre ady fled to Ha

waii -- where he re mained for four months befor e turning himself in -- and had no plans to return to the house or to provide f or its upkeep. B e c a us e it is unne c e ssa

ry to our c on c lus ion , we do no t de c ide tod ay wh e the r t he F lor ida Sup re me 7 Cour t r easona bly conclude d that Z akrzewski fa iled to satisfy the pre judice ele ment of this ineffe ctive assistance claim. 14 of the hou se a nd the n se al ed the hou se unt il a w ar

rant w as obt ai ne d. B as ed on the re co rd f ac ts, the state 3. 850 co urt c onc lud ed - - w e ac ce pt r ea sona

bly - - tha t the
w ar rantl es s se ar chof

Z akrz ew ski ’ s ho use w as j ust if ie d by e xig en t c ir cu m stanc es . 6 Zakrzew ski has failed to sho w that tria l counsel’s dec ision not to file a
m oti on t o su

ppr es s th e ev ide nc e dis co ve re d duri ng the w ar rantl es s se ar chw as a co u rs e n o co m

p et en tco u n s el wo u l dh av e t ak en u n d ert h e c i rc u m s t an ce s . We co nc lud e the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at Z akrz ew ski f

ai le d to showde fi ci en t pe rf

orm an ce w as ar ea sona

ble appl ic at ionof

S tr ic kland. 7

IV . C onc lus ion

T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of Z akrz ew ski ’ s 28 U . S. C. § 22 54 p et iti on i s AFFIR MED.