FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 23, 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- 13815 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 0 3 - CV - 4 - RH - W CS J E R E M I A H E . B E A Z L E Y , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, ve r s us J A M E S V . C R O S B Y , 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 N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 23, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antJe re m i ah E . B ea zl ey , a F l ori da pri soner s ervi ng a t ot al 34 -y ea r s e n te n c e f

o ra tte m p te d m a n s la u g h te rw ith a f ir e a rm , d is c h a r g in g a f

ir e a rm w ith in2

1 ,0 0 0 f e e t o f a n o th e rp e r s o n , s h o o tin g a t o rin to a d w e llin g , a n d b e in g a f e lo n in p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm , ap p eal s th e d en i al o f h i s p ro se habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on, w hi c h he f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. I n hi s pe t i t i on, B e a z l e y c l a i m e d, a m o n g o th e rth in g s , th a t th e s ta te tr ia l c o u r t v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts to confrontand cross -e xam i ne w i tness es by re fusi ng t o al l ow hi m t o cal l R ob ert M a r t i n, a c o- de f

e nda ntw ho pl e d gui l ty t o the s a m e of f e ns e s a nd w hos e t e s t i m ony w ou l d h ave been re l evantt o i m peac h the st at e’ s w i tness , S hann on K ni gh t , another o f B eazl ey’ s co -d efen d an t s. A ttri al , D om el l o B ol w ar e t es t i fi ed that , on S ept em ber 30, 19 97 , as he w as w al ki ng i n the fr on tya rd of hi s brother’ s gi rl fr i end’ s hou se at91 9 C on e A venu e, s e ve r a l s hot s w e r e f

i r e d a thi m f

r om a r e d M us t a ng w i th t i nt e d w i ndow s . K ni ght t e s t i f i e d tha ton S e pt e m be r30th: ( 1) s he w a s dr i vi ng he rf r i e nd’ s r e d M us t a ng w hi l e B ea zl eysa ti n the pass enger s ea t , and M art i n sati n the back sea t ; (2) B ea zl ey t ol d h erw here t o d ri ve, t o rol l do w n h erw i nd ow , and t o d ri ve sl ow l y; (3) B ea zl ey st art ed fi ri ng hi s gun and t ol d h ert o d ri ve fa st er ; (4) the fi rs tt i m e thatshe s aw that B e a z le y h a d a g u n w a s w h e n h e s ta r te d f ir in g it; ( 5 ) s h e d id n o t s e e w h a t M a r tin w a s doi ng; ( 6) a f

t e rthe s hoot i ng, the y w e ntt o M c D ona l d’ s , w he r e s he gotoutof the ca r a nd st art ed ye l l i ng ; and (7) then, B ea zl eyand M art i n d ropp ed her off a ther apa r tm e nt . S he de ni e d tha ta w e apon w e ntof f i n the c a ron the w a y t o C one3

A ve nue a nd c r e a t e d a hol e i n the f l oorboa r d. G e or ge P e rki ns t e s t i f i e d tha t , on S e pt e m be r30th, B e a z l e y : ( 1) c a m e ove rt o hi s hous e w i th M a r t i n, t ol d hi m tha the

“ w a s goi ng t o f

i r e s om e w a rni ng s hot s ” a ts om e one w ho ha d “ r i ppe d hi m of f , ” a nd t ook a . 357 f

i r e a r m ; ( 2) r e turne d l a t e rtha tni ghtw i th M a r t i n, tw o f i r e a rm s , a nd a ha ndf ul of e m pty c a r tr i dge s a nd a s ke d P e rki ns t o “ hol d ont o” the f i r e a rm s ; a nd (3) t ol d P erki ns thathe had “ fi re d som e w arni ng shot s t o send o uta m es sa ge, l et hi m kn ow no tt o ri p h i m off a gai n. ” D u ri n g h i s case-i n -ch i ef, B eazl ey i n d i cat ed th ath e w i sh ed t o cal l M art i n as a w itn e s s , to w h ic h th e s ta te o b je c te d th a t B e a z le y w a s c a llin g M a r tin f o rth e s o le pu rpose of i m peac hi ng hi m . O utof the heari ng of the j ury, M art i n p roff er ed that he w ou l d h ave t es t i fi ed, am on g o ther thi ng s, that : (1) he part i ci pat ed i n the dri veby s hoot i ng w i th B e a z l e y a nd K ni ght ; ( 2) the y l e f tf r om B e a z l e y ’ s apa r tm e nt ; ( 3) he had tw o . 35 7 g un s w i th h i m and fi re d “ a f ew ” s ho t s; (4) he di d n otthi nk that K ni gh tkn ew thathe had a gu n, bu tshe c ou l d see thatB ea zl eyhad a gu n; (5) a s th e y we r e o n th e i rwa y t o C o n e Av e n u e , o n e o f th e two g u n s we n to f

f a n d b l e w a h o le in th e f

lo o rb o a r d o f

th e M u s ta n g ; a n d ( 6 ) a f te rth e s h o o tin g , th e y w e n t to P e r k in s ’s ap a r tm e n t to g e t r id o f th e g u n s a n d th e c a r . H e d e n ie d th a t th e y w e n t to M cD on al d’ s a nd thatK ni gh tgo tou tof the ca r. W hen asked w hether he had w ri tt en a l ett ert o B ea zl ey , apol og i zi ng for “ l [y i ng ] on hi m ” a nd st at i ng thati tw as4

j u s th e a n d K n i g h ti n th e c a r , M a r t i n t e s t i f i e d th a th e h a d c o p i e d th e l e tt e rf r o m a l e tt e rtha tB e a z l e y ha d s e nthi m a nd he pr e vi ous l y ha d c ont a c t e d the s t a t e aboutthe e f f e c t o f c h a n g in g h is s to ry o n h is p le a b a r g a in a n d s e n t th e s ta te ’s r e s p o n s e to B e a z l e y . H e de ni e d t e l l i ng othe ri nm a t e s tha tB e a z l e y ha d nothi ng t o do w i th the s h o o tin g . T he c our ts us t a i ne d the s t a t e ’ s obj e c t i on t o M a r t i n’ s t e s t i m ony on the gr ounds tha tthe pr i m a ry purpos e of c a l l i ng M a r t i n w oul d be t o i m pe a c h hi m by i ntrodu ci ng evi dence of pri or i ncon si st entst at em ent s. T he j ury f ou nd B ea zl ey g u ilty a s to a ll f

iv e c o u n ts a n d h e ap p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n s . T h e s ta te ap p e lla te courtconsi dere d the excl usi on of M art i n’ s t es t i m on y, bu tsum m ar i l y a ff i rm ed M art i n’ s c on vi ct i on s. B ea zl eypet i t i on ed for habeas corpus and the di stri ctcourt foun d thatexcl usi on of M art i n’ s t es t i m on y di d n otvi ol at e B ea zl ey ’ s f eder al c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b e c a u s e M a r tin ’s te s tim o n y w a s “u s e le s s ” f o rb o th th e s ta te and B ea zl ey . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdeni ed B ea zl ey ’ s pet i t i on for habeas c o rp u s . H o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te dB e a z le y a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility on the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue onl y : “ w he the rpe t i t i one ri s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f on the gr ound thatthe excl usi on of the t es t i m on y of R ob ertM art i n w as un const i tut i on al . ” O n app ea l , B ea zl eyar gu es thatthe st at e c ou rtvi ol at ed hi s c on st i tut i on al r i ght s w he n i te xc l ude d the t e s t i m ony of M a r t i n, w hos e t e s t i m ony w oul d ha ve5

(1) c al l ed i nt o q uest i on K ni gh t ’ s t es t i m on y, w hi ch w as the on l y di re ctevi dence thatB ea zl eyfi re d the shot s; (2) c on tra di ct ed t es t i m on y abo utthe gu ns thatw er e f o u n d in P e r k in s ’s ap a r tm e n t; a n d ( 3 ) p e rm itte d B e a z le y to c a ll s e v e r a l in m a te s to t e s t i f y tha tM a r t i n t ol d the m tha tB e a z l e y w a s i nnoc e nt . H e a r gue s tha the w a s not a tte m p tin g to im p e a c h M a r tin , b u t to e lic it M a r tin ’s v e r s io n o f th e e v e n ts . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f a h ab e a s p e titio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 is r e vi e w e d de no vo . S i m s v. S i n g l eta ry , 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A habeas pet i t i on “ shal l no tbe grant ed w i th res pectt o any cl ai m thatw as adj ud i ca t ed on the m e r i t s i n S t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ngs unl e s s the a dj udi c a t i on of the c la im

– ( 1 ) r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le 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 d Fe d e r a l l a w , a s d e t e rmi n e d b y th e Su p r e me C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es ; or (2) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as base d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). H ow ever , the defer ent i al st andard o f § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) d o e s n o t ap p ly “w h e n th e r e is g r a v e d o u b t ab o u t w h e th e rth e s ta te courtappl i ed the corre ctrul e of gov erni ng fe dera l l aw . ” R om i ne v . H e ad , 253 F . 3d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . “ Th e s t a t e c o u r t ’ s f a i l u r e t o c i t e th e r e l e v a n tSu p r e me C ou rtprec edent s does notm ea n thatA E D P A defe re nce does notappl y. ” P arke r v . Sec’y f o r D ep ’t o f C o rr . , 33 1 F . 3d 76 4, 77 6 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). “ A l l thati s r equi re d6

un der § 22 54 (d)( 1) i s a n adj ud i ca t i on on the m er i t s, no ta f ul l st at e c ou rtop i ni on . ” I d. “A s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n is ‘c o n tr a ry to ’ o u rc le a r ly e s tab lis h e d la w if it ‘ap p lie s a ru le th a t c o n tr a d ic ts th e g o v e rn in g la w s e t f o r th in o u rc a s e s ’ o rif

it ‘c o n f r o n ts a s e t o f

f a c ts th a t a r e m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h ab le f r o m a d e c is io n o f

th is C o u r t a n d n e v e r th e le s s a rr iv e s a t ar e s u lt d if f e r e n t f r o m o u rp r e c e d e n t.’ A s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n is n o t ‘c o n tr a ry to . . . c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d F e d e r a l la w ’ s im p ly because the courtdi d n otci t e our op i ni on s. ” Mi tch el l v. Esp a rza , 540 U . S . 12, 15- 16 , 12 4 S . C t . 7, 10 , 15 7 L . E d. 2d 26 3 (20 03 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T h e F if th a n d S ix th A m e n d m e n ts g u a r a n te e a c r im in a l d e f e n d a n t th e r ig h ts t o obt a i n f

a vor abl e w i tne s s e s by c om pul s ory pr oc e s s a nd a n oppor tuni ty t o pr e s e nt e v id e n c e in h is f

a v o r . U n i ted S ta tes v. H

u rn , 36 8 F . 3d 13 59 , 13 62 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thata def endant ’ s r i gh tt o h ave c om pu l sory p r o c e s s f o ro b ta in in g w itn e s s e s in h is f a v o ris v io la te d w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t is a rbi tr a r i l y de ni e d the r i ghtt o pr e s e nta w i tne s s w ho i s c apabl e of t e s t i f y i ng a nd

“ w ho se t es t i m on y w ou l d h ave been re l evantand m at er i al t o the defense . ” W as hi ngton v . T

ex as , 388 U . S . 14, 23, 87 S . C t . 1920, 1925, 18 L . E d. 2d 1019 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . W e c onc l ude f

r om the r e c or d tha tthe s t a t e appe l l a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on tha tthe7

t e s t i m ony s houl d be e xc l ude d be c a us e i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue w a s outw e i ghe d by the i m pr ope ri m pe a c hm e ntpurpos e w a s notc ontr a ry t o, ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on o f, “clear ly es tab li sh ed F ed er al law .” M o re o v er , an y e rr o r in ex clu d in g M ar ti n ’s s ubs t a nt i ve t e s t i m ony w a s ha r m l e s s be c a us e , e ve n w i thoutc ons i de r i ng the te s tim o n y o f

K n ig h t, s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d B e a z le y ’s c o n v ic tio n s . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdenyi ng habeas re l i ef . A F F I R M E D .