### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble Wm. Terre ll Hodge s, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. [ 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- 13059

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 9 9 -0 0 8 8 9 -C V -J-2 5 -T JC H A R O L D B . C L A R K , P et i t i on er -A pp el l ee , v ersu s J A M E S C R O S B Y , C H A R L I E C R I S T , F lo r id aA tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 16, 2005) B ef ore B L A C K and H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg es , and H O D G E S , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d H a r ol d C l a rk’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on, c onc l udi ng the s t a t e c our t ’ s a dj udi c a t i on of C l a rk’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of appel l at e c ou nsel cl ai m w as an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e S ta te f ile d th is ap p e a l. W e a f f irm . C l ark w as ch arg ed i n st at e co u rtw i th b reak i n g i n t o th e d w el l i n g o f h i s f o rm e rg ir lf

r ie n d , a n d a tte m p tin g to k ill h e rb y c u ttin g h e rth r o a t w h ile s h e s le p t. D ur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt s a ttr i a l , the S t a t e t ol d the j ury tha ti n or de rt o pr ove C l ark g ui l ty of a tt em pt ed fi rs t -degree m urder, the S t at e c ou l d sho w ei ther pr e m e di t a t i on ortha tthe a c tof c utt i ng the vi c t i m ’ s thr oa tw a s done i n the c our s e of a nothe rf e l ony . T he j ury f

ound C l a rk gui l ty of

a tt e m pt e d f

i r s t - de gr e e m ur de ra nd b u rg l ary. A f t e rC l a rk’ s c onvi c t i on, the F l or i daS upr e m e C our tde c i de d State v . G r ay , 65 4 S o. 2d 55 2 (F l a. 19 95 ), re ce di ng fr om a pri or deci si on and h ol di ng att em pt ed f e lo n y m u r d e rw a s n o t ac r im e in F lo r id a . I d. a t554. I n G r ay , th e C o u r t s ta te d its d e c is io n s h o u ld b e ap p lie d to a ll c a s e s p e n d in g o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. I d. A tth e t i me the G ray de c i s i on w a s r e nde r e d, C l a rk’ s di r e c tappe a l w a s pe ndi ng, butbr i e f i ng ha d be e n c om pl e t e d. C l a rk’ s a tt orne y di d notr a i s e a n a r gum e ntba s e d on G r a y . O n M a y 23, 1995, the s t a t e appe l l a t e c our ta f f i rm e d C l a rk’ s c onvi c t i on.3

I n S e p te m b e r1 9 9 5 , C la rk f ile d ap e titio n f

o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s in s ta te c o u r t, a r g u in g , in te ra lia , th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to ra i se an ar gu m entbase d o n the G r ay h o ld in g th a t a tte m p te df e lo n y m u r d e ris n o t a c r i m e i n F l or i da . T he s t a t e c our ts um m a r i l y de ni e d C l a rk’ s pe t i t i on. C la rk th e n f

ile d am o tio n f

o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f , p u r s u a n t to F lo r id aR u le of C ri m i nal P roce du re 3. 85 0. A ft eran evi dent i ary hea ri ng , the st at e c ou rtdeni ed C l ark’ s R ul e 3. 85 0 m ot i on . T he courtno t ed thatC l ark’ s i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance cl ai m w as cogn i zabl e onl y i n the habeas c orpu s proce edi ng before the courtthat de c i de d C l a rk’ s di r e c tappe a l . T he de ni a l of R ul e 3. 850 r e l i e f

w a s a f f i rm e d on ap p e a l. C l a rk, i ni t i a l l y pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , f i l e d thi s § 2254 pe t i t i on a r gui ng, i n t e ra l i a , th a t : ( 1 ) h i s c o n v i c t i o n w a s o b t a i n e d b y u s e o f an o n - e x i s t e n tc r i me un der F l ori da l aw (a tt em pt ed fi rs t -degree fe l on y m urder) ; and (2) he w as deni ed e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

ap p e lla te c o u n s e l b a s e d o n h is ap p e lla te a tto rn e y ’s f a ilu r e to ar g u e h e w as co n v icted o f a n o n -e x isten t crim e. T h e d istrict co u rt d en ied C lark ’s pet i t i on . O n the i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of appel l at e c ou nsel cl ai m , the di stri ctcourt concl ud ed C l ark’ s app el l at e c ou nsel ’ s per form ance w as no tdefi ci ent . T he di stri ct courtdi d n otaddres s the Str i c kland pr e j udi c e pr ong.4

O n appe a l , w e appoi nt e d c ouns e l . W e va c a t e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nt o n th e in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im . Se e C lark v . Cr os by , 335 F . 3d 1303, 1 3 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 5 4 0 U .S . 1 1 5 5 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 1 5 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e m a n d e d th e c a s e , s ta tin g : “W ith o u t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , th e r e c o r d in th is ca se d o es n o t su p p o rt a f in d in g re g ar d in g th [e ] co n stitu ti o n al ad eq u ac y o f C lark ’s appel l at e c ou nsel ’ s per form ance . ” I d. a t 1 3 1 2 . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a nd e nt e r e d a ve ry thor ough opi ni on gr a nt i ng C l a rk’ s pe t i t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o hi s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

appe l l a t e c ouns e l c l a i m . T he S t a t e appe a l e d. W e he a r d or a l a r gum e nton the S t a t e ’ s appe a l . A f t e rhe a r i ng or a l a r gum e nt a nd r e vi e w i ng the br i e f

s a nd the r e c or d i n thi s c a s e , w e hol d the r e w a s no r e v e r s ib le e rr o ra n d a f

f irm . AF F I R ME D.