FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 39 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 8- cv -0 21 76 -GAP-GJ K GEORGE DAV ID LAMONTAGNE, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, EDWARD GRIFFI N, W ard enof t he Avo n P ark Co rrec ti on al Ins ti tu ti on , 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 6, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Pet it io ne r Geo rg e Lam on ta gn e, a Fl or id a p ris on er, ap pe al s p ro se t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Sta te Co urt Pl ea InMay 200 4 i n F lo rid a st at e co urt, Lam on ta gn e p le d n ol o c on te nd ere t o two co un ts of l ewdor l as ci vi ou s m ol es ta ti on of avi ct im les s tha n twelv e y ears of a ge , in vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a St atut es § 8 00 .04 (5 )(b ). In e xc ha ng e fo r hi s p le a, th e St at e ag reedto di sm is s a t hi rdco un t o f cap it al sex ua l b atte ry , whi chwou ldha ve ex po se d Lam on ta gn e to a m an da to ry li fe s en te nc e. As p artof t he pl ea ag reem en t, Lam on ta gn e al so pl edno lo co nt en de re t o 5 8 co un ts of p os se ss io n o f m at eri al de pi ct in g s ex ua l co nduc t b y a ch il d, i n v io la ti on of Flo rid a St atut es § 8 27 .07 1( 5) . Thes e 5 8 o ffen se s wer e ch arg edina se pa rat e 1 cri m in al in di ctm en t an d a ro se fro m ch il d p orno gr ap hy foundon Lam on ta gn e’s co m pu te r du rin g the ch il d m ol es ta ti on in ve st ig at io n. Th e St at e an d Lam on ta gn e ag reedto a se nt en ce o f 25 y ears im pr is on m en t an d 1 5 years o f se x o ffen de r There wer e orig inally

62 counts of possession of c hild pornography , but the State agree d 1 to drop four c ounts after

L amontagne’s tria l counsel met with the State prose cutor a nd revie wed all of the imag es. 2pr ob at io n o n the § 8 00 .04 (5 )(b ) ch il d m ol es ta ti on ch arg es an d t o c on cu rren t 5 y ear

im pr is on m en t t erm s o n the § 8 27 .07 1( 5) ch il d p orno gr ap hy char ge s. Acco rd in g t o the st at e tr ia l co urt tran sc rip t, the Sta te pro se cu to r pr ov id ed th es e fac ts to est ab li sh th e fac tu al ba si s fo r Lam on ta gn e’s pl ea: (1) on th e n ig htof Octo be r 25 , 20 03 , th e si x- y ear- ol d v ic ti m an d h er m ot he r, who was d at in g Lam on ta gn e atth e ti m e, sp en t the ni gh t atLam on ta gn e’s res id en ce; (2) twi ce du rin g the ni gh t Lam on ta gn e en te redth e v ic ti m ’s bed ro om an d h adin ap pr op ria te se xu al co nt actwith h er; (3) du rin g o ne of Lam on ta gn e’s vi si ts , he p ho to gr ap he d th e v ic ti m ’s vag in al area ; (4 ) fo ll owi ng Lam on ta gn e’s arre st , po li ce fo un d o ve r 24 0 i m ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy onth e co m pu te r in Lam on ta gn e’s res id en ce, whi chha d re su lt edinth e 5 8 c ou nt s o f po ss es si on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy; an d (5 ) Lam on ta gn e co nf

es se d t o d own lo ad in g s om e o f th e im ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy th e d ay be fo re the vi ct im

an d h er m othe r sp en t the ni gh t athi s h ou se . The st at e tr ia l co urt as ke d Lam on ta gn e whe th er h e o bjec te d t o S ta te ’s fact s, an d Lam on ta gn e res po nd edth athe di d n ot . The s ta te tri al co urt fo un d the re was a su ffi ci en t fa ctua l b as is forth e p le as an d tha t Lam on ta gn e’s pl eas were kno win g an d v ol un tary . The s ta te tri al co urt ad jud ge d Lam on ta gn e g ui lty of b ot h o ffen se s. Lam on ta gn e v ol un taril y

di sm is se d h is di rectcri m in al ap pe al . Lam on ta gn e is curren tl y

servi ng hi s s en te nc es . 3B. Rule 3.8 50 Mot io n fo r Pos t-co nv ic tio n Rel ie f

In20 07 , Lam on ta gn e fi le d am ot io n fo r po stco nv ic ti on rel ie f, pu rs ua ntto Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0, al le gi ng , in te r al ia , th athe pl edgu il ty to th e ch il d m ol es ta ti on ch arg es as ares ul t o f hi s tria l co un se l’s i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce. Lam on ta gn e d idno t ch al le ng e h is pl ea t o the 58 co un ts of c hi ld po rn og rap hy. Sp eci fic al ly, Lam on ta gn e al le ge d tha t h is tri al co un se l erro ne ou sl y advi se d Lam on ta gn e th atth e ch il d p orno gr ap hy foundon Lam on ta gn e’s co m pu te r (1 ) was adm is si bl e in hi s ch il d m ol es ta ti on tri al as s im il ar fa ct s ev id en ce, an d (2 ) co ul d n ot be ex cl ud edba se d o n the Sta te ’s fai lu re t o fi le th e st atut ory ten -d ay pri orwrit te n no ti ce re qu ire m en t b ecau se tri al co un se l h adrece iv edactua l n ot ic e. Lam on ta gn e cl ai m edth atth e ch il d p orno gr ap hy evi de nc e was in adm is si bl e in hi s ch il d m ol es ta ti on cas e an d, b utforhi s tria l co un se l’s erro ne ou s ad vi ce, h e wou ldha ve pr oc eed edto tri al . The st at e co urt s umm ari ly den ie d the Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at Lam on ta gn e h adno t al le ge d fa ct s s uf fic ie ntto sh ow tria l co un se l’s d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce o r res ul ti ng pre jud ic e und er Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . The s tate co urt n ot ed , in te r al ia , th attri al co un se l re cei ve d actua l n ot ic e o f th e in te ntto us e th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy evi de nc e attri al an d tha t 4la ckof f

orm al no ti ce “ m ay

be de em edha rm le ss at t ria l wh ere, as he re, the re was no sh owi ng of a ctua l p reju di ce o r un fai r su rp ris e.” C. Sect io n 2 25 4 Pet iti on Inhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on , Lam on ta gn e ag ai n a ll eg edth athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r advi si ng hi m th atth ere was no po ss ib il ity of e xc lu di ng th e ch il d po rn og rap hy evi de nc e in hi s ch il d m ol es ta ti on cas e. Lam on ta gn e atta ch eda co py 2 of a Ja nu ary 20 05 (i.e ., po st -p le a) l et te r fro m hi s tria l co un se l. Inth e le tt er, tria l co un se l s ta te d tha t: (1) he in sp ect edth e “ ot he r ev id en ce” t ha t the go ve rn m en t h ad in te nd edto us e attri al , whi chhe de sc rib edas “ se ve ral hu nd redpo rn og rap hi c ph ot og rap hs de pi ct in g m an y ch il dr en , so m e o f who m were m ere i nf

an ts , eng ag ed in va rio us sex ua l ac ts with a du ltm en ”; an d (2 ) he was g iv enactua l n ot ic e o f th e St at e’s in te ntto us e th os e p ho to gr ap hs at t ria l i n a n e m ai l an d v erb al ly whe n h e to okth e v ic ti m ’s dep os it io n. Trial co un se l ex pl ai ne d tha t the factth atth e 3 go ve rn m en t d idno t fi le a writ te n n ot ic e o f it s i nt en t wi th in ten da y s o f tr ia l “ do es no t m eanth atth ey

are b arre d fr om

us in g tha t ev id en ce wh ere I am othe rwis e o n

L amontagne is not contendingthat trial counsel should have moved to suppress the c hild 2 pornography

photogr aphs on the ba sis of a F ourth Amendment violation. Rather, L amontagne contends the photographs would not have been a dmissibl e as a n evidentiar

y matter in his child molestation case if

he had pr ocee ded to trial. Thus, for clarity , we r efe r to his counsel cla im as one involving a dvice a

bout the exclusion of evidence . L amontagne’s § 2254 petition alleg es that this deposition occurr ed in Marc h 2004. 3 5no ti ce o f th ei r in te nt io ns .”

The di stric t co urt d en ie d Lam on ta gn e’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d tha t Lam on ta gn e h adno t al le ge d fa ct s s ho win g e ithe r de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e, an d thu s Lam on ta gn e h adno t s ho wn tha t the st at e co urt’s d eci si on was e ithe r co nt rary to, o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, Stric kl an d. W e g ran te d Lam on ta gn e’s reque stfora cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity on th e is su e o f “ [w]hethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g, wi th ou t h ol di ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Lam on ta gn e’s cl ai m all eg in g tha t h is co un se l furn is he d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce i n a dv is in g h im th atth e st at e p ro se cu to r co ul d i nt ro du ce si mil ar fa ctev id en ce attri al .” W e fu rth er i ns tru ct edth e p art ie s, i n c on si de rin g 4 th is is su e, to “ co ns id er the effe ct , if an y , of the de fere nc e st an dardco di fie d i n 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) .” II . DISCUSSI ON A. AEDPA As am en de d b y

th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ct

Gene rally , the dec ision whether to grant a habea s petitioner an e videntiary hearing r ests 4 in the discretion of the district court. Schriro v. L andrig an, 550 U.S. 465, 468, 127 S. Ct. 1933, 1937 (2007). We re view the de cision to gr ant or de ny a § 2254 petitioner a

n evidentiar

y hearing for a n abuse of

discretion. F erguson v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corrs., 580 F .3d 1183, 1194 (11th Cir. 2009), ce rt. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3360 (2010). 6(“ AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) forbi ds a fed eral co urt fr om gra nt in g h ab eas rel ie f on cla im s tha t wer e p rev io us ly deci de d i n s ta te co urt, u nl es s the st at e co urt de ci si on was (1 ) “ 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 es tabl is he d F ed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es ,” or(2) “ba se d o n an u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n the Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . 5 B. In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce Und er St ri ck la nd To es tabl is h c on st itut io na ll y in effe ct iv e as si st an ce, the de fen da ntm us t s ho w th at(1) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edth e d efen se . Stri ck land , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 . Stric kl an d’s two- pa rt t es t ap pl ie s t o c ha ll en ge s t o g ui lty pl eas ba se d o n in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Un it edSta te s v . Peas e, 24 0 F .3d93 8, 9 41 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ). To es tabl is h d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, the pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w hi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le inli gh t o f pr ev ai li ng pr of es si on al no rm s. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87 -8 8, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 -6 5. To sa ti sf y Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng , th e p et it io ne r m us t s ho w “ a rea so nabl e

We reviewde novo the district cour t’s deter mination whether the state cour t acted 5 contra ry to clearly established fe dera l law, unre asonably applied cle arly

established fe dera l law or made an unre asonable deter mination of fac t. Reed v. Sec’ y , Fla. D ep’t of Corr s., 593 F.3d 1217, 1239 (11th Cir.), ce rt. denied, 131 S. Ct. 177 (2010). 7pr ob ab il ity

th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s erro rs , he wo ul d n otha ve pl ead edgu il ty and wou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o tria l.” Hi ll v. Lo ckhart, 4 74 U.S. 52 , 59 , 10 6 S . Ct . 36 6, 3 70 (19 85 ). Ourst an da rdof r ev ie w is “ do ub ly defer en ti al ” whe n “ a Stric kl an d c la im [is ] ev al ua te d u nd er the § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) st an da rd .” Kno wles v. Mi rzayance , __ _ U.S.

__ _, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 41 1, 1 42 0 (2 00 9) . “ The qu es ti on is no t wh ethe r a fed eral co urt be li ev es th e st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n u nd er the Str ic kl an d s tand ardwas in co rrec t b utwhet he r th atde te rm in at io n was un reas on ab le – a s ub st an ti al ly hig he r th res ho ld .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . C. La m on ta gn e’s Cla im Here, Lam on ta gn e h as no t s ho wn tha t the st at e co urt’s d eci si onwas co nt rary to, o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, Str ic kl an d. Lam on ta gn e’s th eo ry of hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e cl ai m res ts on th e as su m

pt io n tha t h e h ada vi ab le m ot io n to ex cl ud e th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy fou ndon hi s co m pu te r fro m

be in g a dm is si bl e in hi s ch il d m ol es ta ti on cas e. Becaus e th is ass um pt io n i s faul ty, th e st at e co urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d tha t Lam on ta gn e co ul d n otsh ow ei th er d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce orres ul ti ng pre

jud ic e. Und er Fl or id a la w, si m il ar fa ctev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es , referredto as W il li am s R

ul e ev id en ce, “ is adm is si bl e whe n re le va ntto pro ve a m at eri al factin 8is su e” s uc h a s m ot iv e, in te nt , pre pa rat io n o r pl an . Fla. St at . § 9 0.4 04 (2 )(a) . If th e

St at e in te nd s t o re ly on Wil li am s R ul e ev id en ce, i t m

us t g iv e wri tt enno ti ce t o the de fen da nt ’s cou ns el “ no fewer tha n 1 0 d ay s b efo re tria l,” unl es s the ev id en ce i s t o be “us edforim

pe ach m en t o r on reb ut ta l.” Id . § 4 04 (2 )(c) (1 ). Howev er, the fai lu re t o p ro vi de su chno ti ce i s s ub ject t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s an d i s n ot rev ers ib le erro r un le ss th e d efen da ntest ab li sh es actua l p reju di ce o r un fai r su rp ris e. Barb ee v . State , 63 0 S o. 2 d 6 55 , 65 5- 56 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 94 ) (rejec ti ng de fen da nt ’s arg um en t tha t St at e m us t s tri ct ly com

pl y with t en -d ay

no ti ce requi rem en t an d c on cl ud in g tria l co urt co rrec tl y he ldhe ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er vi ol at io n re su lt edinpre

jud ic e o r ha rm

to th e d efen dant ); S ta te v. Pa il le , 60 1 S o. 2d13 21 , 13 24 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 92 ) (fi nd in g l ackof n ot ic e h arm le ss erro r whe re d efen da ntkn ew of othe r cri m e ev id en ce an d p os si bi li ty tha t St at e wou ld in tro du ce i t attri al ). Evi de nc e o f ot he r cri m es th atare “ in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed ” wit h the ch arg edoff

en se is adm is si bl e as “ a rel ev an t an d i ns ep arab le pa rt o f th e act ” th atis ne ces sa ry “ to ad equa te ly des cri be th e d eed .” Griff in v. St at e, 63 9 S o. 2 d 9 66 , 96 8 (Fl a. 19 94 ). Thi s ev id en ce i s n otco ns id eredW il li am s R ul e ev id en ce an d i s n ot subjec t t o the st atut ory

ten -d ay no ti ce re qu ire m en t. Id . The un di sp ut edfact s i n the reco rdsh ow tha t: (1) th e ev id en ce o f ch il d 9po rn og rap hy was fo un d o n Lam on ta gn e’s co m pu te r; ( 2) Lam on ta gn e co nf es se d t o do wnl oa di ng so m e o f th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy the da y be fo re h e co m

mitte d the ch arg edch il d m ol es ta ti on off en se s; an d (3 ) in fact , du rin g the ch arg edch il d m ol es ta ti on off

en se s, Lam on ta gn e to okph ot og rap hs of the ch il d v ic ti m ’s ge ni ta li a. At a m in im

um , th e ev id en ce o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy with y ou ng ch il dr en on hi s co m

pu te r atex act ly the same tim e o f hi s ch il d m ol es tati on co nduc t in vo lv in g asi x- y ear- ol d v ic ti m was a dm is si bl e si m il ar fa ctev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es un de r § 9 0.4 04 (2 )(a) as r el ev an t t o s ho w Lam on ta gn e’s m ot iv e, in te ntan d pr ep arat io n. Th eref

or e, a m ot io n t o e xc lu de th e ev id en ce as in adm is si bl e ch arac te r ev id en ce wo ul d a lm os t ce rta in ly hav e fai le d. Furth er, the reco rdin di sp ut ab ly sho ws tha t: (1) th e St at e g av e Lam on ta gn e’s tr ia l co un se l ac tu al no ti ce o f it s i nt en t t o i nt ro du ce the ev id en ce at tri al when tri al co un se l t oo k the vi ct im ’s dep os it io n i n M arch 20 04 ; an d (2 ) hi s tri al co un se l was gi ve n a n o pp ortu ni ty to i ns pe ctth e p ho to gr ap hs be fo re Lam on ta gn e’s May 20 04 pl ea h eari ng . As su ch , Lam on ta gn e co ul d n otha ve sh own un fai r su rp ris e o r pr ejud ic e to hi s tria l p rep arat io n. Gi ve n the clo se ti m efram e an d Lam on ta gn e’s ownus e o f a cam era dur in g the ch arg edoff en se s, i t i s arg uabl e th atpo ss es si onof t he im ag es Lam on ta gn e d own lo ad edth e n ig htbe fo re he co m m it te d the ch arg edoff

en se s co ns ti tu te d i ns ep arab le othe r cri m es no t s ub ject 10to th e te n- da y no ti ce re qu ire m en t. Eit he r way , th e tr ia l co urt wo ul d n otha ve ex cl ud edth e ch il d p orno gr ap hy evi de nc e fo r fai lu re t o c om pl y with § 9 0.4 04 (2 )(c) ’s ten -d ay

no ti ce re qu ire m en t. Insu m , itis ve ry

un li ke ly a m ot io n t o e xc lu de th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy ev id en ce wo ul d h av e b eensu cces sf ul . There fo re, und er the Str ic kl an d s tand ard , tri al co un se l’s ad vi ce t o Lam on ta gn e dur in g p le a n eg ot ia ti on s was reas on ab le an d di d n otpre

jud ic e Lam on ta gn e wit h re sp ectto hi s d eci si onto pl eadno lo co nt en de re ra th er tha n p ro ceedto tri al . Giv enth atth e und is pu te d fa ct s s ho w th at th e st at e co urt d idno t ac t co nt rary to, o r un reas on ab ly app ly, Stric kl an d i n reject in g Lam on ta gn e’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Lam on ta gn e’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n wi th ou t ho ld in g a n e vi de nt iary

he ari ng . See Atwa te r v. C ro sb y , 45 1 F .3d79 9, 8 12 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ [A]n ev id en ti ary he ari ng is no t re qu ire d u nl es s [t he pe ti ti on er] can de m on st rat e th athi s fa ctua l al le ga ti on s, i f pr ov en , wou ldin di cat e th atth e st at e co urts act edco nt rary to, o r un reas on ab ly app li ed , cle arl y est ab li sh edlaw wh en th ey reject edhi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l cl ai m .”). 6 AFFIRMED.

L amontagne cla ims we should not give the state cour t’s summary

decision AEDPA 6 defe renc e. Howe ver, e ven re viewingL amontagne’s inef fec tive assistance claim de novo, we would rea ch the same re sult. 11