FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 65 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 02 39 -WT H-TBS BLADIMIR

RIOS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY G ENERAL, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 22 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Bl ad im ir R io s, a Fl or id a p ris on er, ap pe al s p ro se t he de ni al of h is pe ti ti on fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Inth e Fl or id a co urts , Rio s co ll at eral ly atta ck ed , Fla . R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 , hi s co nv ic ti onforsec on d d eg ree m ur de r onth e g ro un d tha t h is tri al co un se l h adbe enin effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to m ov e fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Becau se th e Fl or id a co urts reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law wh enth ey co nc lu de d t ha t Ri os ha d fa il edto est ab li sh th at hi s co un se l h adpe rfo rm edde fic ie nt ly, we affi rm . W e rev ie w de n ov o the de ni al of awritof h ab eas co rp us . Bor de n v . All en , 64 6 F .3d78 5, 8 08 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). To o bt ai n awritof h ab eas co rp us , a de fen da ntm

us t p ro ve th atth e d eci si on of t he st at e co urt was “ co nt rary 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.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). A st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li es cle arl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law wh enth e st at e co urt “ ‘ide nt ifi es th e co rrec t g ov ern in g l eg al pri nc ip le fro m [th e] deci si on s [o f th e Supr em e Co urt], bu t unr eas on ab ly app li es th at pr in ci pl e to th e fac ts ’ of

pe ti ti on er’s cas e.” Wigg in s v . Sm ith, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 20 , 12 3 S . Ct. 2 52 7, 2 53 4– 35 (20 03 ) (quo ti ng W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 3, 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 52 3 (2 00 0) ). To co ns ti tu te an“un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” of fed eral law, the de ci si on of t he st at e co urt m us t b e “ so lac ki ng injus ti fic at io n tha t 2th ere was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il ity

forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on v. Ri ch te r, 56 2 U.S. _

__ , 13 1 S . Ct. 7 70 , 78 6– 87 (20 11 ). A hab eas pe ti ti on er m us t “ [s ]urm ou nt. . . [a] hi gh ba r” t o o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n o f reas on ab le ne ss acco rd edco un se l u nd er Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) , andhe m us t ov erco m e th e “ do ub ly defer en ti al ” st an da rdap pl ie d t o t he de ci si on s o f co un se l un de r se ct io n 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 8. Inothe r wor ds , th e pe ti ti on er m

us t es tabl is h tha t n o “ reas on ab le arg um en t [c anbe m ad e] tha t co un se l sa ti sf ie d S tri ck land ’s def

eren ti al st an da rd .” Id . The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de ni edRio s h ab eas rel ie f. The Fl or id a co urts reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atRio s’s at to rn ey ha d n otbe en“ de fic ie ntforfai li ng to rai se a m eri tl es s” m ot io n t o a cqui t Ri os of f irs t d eg ree m

ur de r. Freeman v. Att’y Gen ., 53 6 F .3d12 25 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The Fl or id a co urts reas on ab ly de te rm in edth atth e st at e h adpre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro ve th atRio s h ad m ur de redElv inRo dr ig ue z wit h “pr em ed it at edde si gn .” Fla . Sta t. § 78 2.0 4( 1) (a)( 1) . One o f Ri os ’s coh orts , Edg ard o M erca do , tes ti fie d t ha t Ri os st ab be d R od rig ue z rep eat ed ly becau se he was asn it ch , andMerc ad o’s ac co un t o f th e m ur de r was co ns is te ntwith the co nd it io ns at t he m ur de r sc en e an d t he fin di ng s of th e m ed ic al ex am in er tha t Ro dr ig ue z h adbe enst ab be d a t l eas t 8 7 t im es with 3two kn iv es an d h adbe enstru ckinhi s l eftlu ng , aorta , andjug ul ar v ei n. Se e Bo y d

v. St at e, 91 0 S o. 2 d 1 67 , 18 2 (F la . 20 05 ) (“ [T]he d el ib erat e u se of akn ife to st ab a vi ct im m ul ti pl e ti m es invi ta l o rg an s i s ev id en ce tha t ca n s up po rt afin di ng of pr em ed it at io n.” ). Rio s ar gu es th atth e d eci si on of t he Flo rid a co urts was un reas on ab le be cau se a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al wou ldhave hi gh li gh te d th e d is crep an ci es be twee n M erca do ’s tes ti m on y an d o th er ev id en ce, b ut“ [t]he fact th atth e ev id en ce i s co nt rad ic to ry do es no t warran t a ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al ,” Fi tz pa tri ckv. St at e, 90 0 S o. 2 d 4 95 , 50 8 (F la . 20 05 ). The Fl or id a co urts reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atRio s h adfai le d t o e st ab li sh th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e. W e AFFIRMth e d en ia l o f Ri os ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us .

4