FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAR 16, 2007 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. 06- 13218 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 5 0 1 - C V - J - 2 0 - MMH D A R R E L L D . G R I S S E T T , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , F L O R I D A A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 16, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an dM A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D arre l l G ri ss ett , a F l ori da pri soner, appeal s pro se the deni al of hi s habea s c o rp u s p e titio n , w h ic h w a s b r o u g h t p u r s u an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . D u r in g h is c r i m i na l tr i a l , hi s c ouns e l m ove d f oraj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l ( J O A ) on one c ountof bur gl ary , a r gui ng tha tthe s t a t e ’ s e vi de nc e c ons i s t e d of as i ngl e f

i nge rpr i ntf

ound on api e c e of

gl a s s r e m ove d f

r om a n e xt e r i ors t orm door , w hi c h w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e o f

g u ilt. G r is s e tt’s c o u n s e l d idn o t, h o w e v e r , c ite s p e c if ic c a s e la w in s u p p o rt o f

h is a r g u m e n t. T h e tr ia l c o u rt s u b s e q u e n tlyd e n ie dh is m o tio n . G ri ss ettsoug htpo st -c on vi ct i on re l i ef , ar gu i ng thathi s c ou nsel w as i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o s upporthi s m ot i on f orJ O A w i th c a s e l a w , na m e l y , L e e v. S t a t e , 640 S o. 2d 126 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1994) , w hi c h r e ve r s e d ac onvi c t i on because the evi dence of burglaryconsi st ed on l y of afi ng erpri nton the ou t si de of a brok en w i nd ow . T he F l ori da st at e c ou rtdeni ed G ri ss ett ’ s r equest s f or re l i ef w i tho utaddres si ng hi s s peci fi c argum entbase d o n L ee . R ather, the st at e c ou rt foun d thathi s c on vi ct i on w as supp ort ed by suff i ci entevi dence, as he w as se en carryi ng i t em s f

rom a di ff

er entvi ct i m ’ s hom e, and b ec ause hi s f i ng erpri nt s w er e id e n tif ie da t “v a r io u s c r im e s c e n e s .” G r is s e tt f ile df o rh ab e a s c o rp u s r e lie f

in d is tr ic t c o u rt, w h ic h d e n ie dh is p e titio n , a ls o w ith o u t a d d r e s s in g s p e c if ic a llyh is L e e a r gum e nt . W e gr a nt e d ac e rt i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i tyon the f

ol l ow i ng que s t i on o n ly: “ W h eth ertrial co u n se l w as in ef fe ctiv e f o r f aili n g to su p p o rt ap p ellan t’ s3

m o tio n f o raju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l w ith c a s e la w .” O n ap p e a l, G r is s e tt a s s e rts th a t h is 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 supp orthi s m ot i on for J O A w i th cas el aw . H e c on t ends that , had h i s c ou nsel ra i se d L e e , the r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha taJ O A w oul d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f a§ 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n d e n o v o . M c N a irv . C a m p b e ll, 4 1 6 F .3 d1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1828 ( 2006) . F a c tua l f

i ndi ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or , a nd m i xe d que s t i ons of la w a n df a c t a r e r e v ie w e dd e n o v o . I d . P ur s ua ntt o § 2254: A n ap p lic a tio n f

o raw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s o n b e h a lf o f ap e r s o n in cust od y pursuantt o the j ud gm entof a S t at e c ou rtshal l no tbe grant ed w ith r e s p e c t to a n yc la im th a t w a s a d ju d ic a te do n th e m e r its in S ta te c o u rtp r o c e e d i n g s u n l e s s th e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

th e c l a i m– (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as de t e rm i ne d bythe S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or ( 2 ) r e s u lte din ad e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e do n a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te din the S t a t e c ourtpr oc e e di ng. 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1)-( 2). W hi l e w e typi ca l l y gi ve defer ence t o st at e c ou rt d e c is io n s in th is c o n te x t, w e h a v e d e c lin e dto d o s o if th e s ta te c o u rt f

a ile dto a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of

ac l a i m a s a s s e rt e d bythe de f e nda nt . S e e D a vi s v. S e c ’ yf or th e D e p ’t o f

C o rr ., 3 4 1 F .3 d1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W h e n as ta te c o u rt f a ils4

t o a ddr e s s a n i s s ue r a i s e d bythe de f e nda nt , i t s de c i s i on i s r e vi e w e d de novo. E s py v . M a s s a c , 4 4 3 F .3 d1 3 6 2 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . U nde rS tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) , ade f e nda ntc a n s uc c e e d on an i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l cl ai m i f he proves that : (1) hi s c ou nsel w as defi ci ent , i . e. , he m ade e rr ors s o s e r io u s th a t c o u n s e l w a s n o t f u n c tio n in g a s g u a r a n te e du n d e rth e S ix th A m en d m en t; an d(2 ) th er e is a re as o n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at, b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s u n p r o f e s s io n a l e rr o r s , th e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ldh a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. C o n ce rn in g th e d ef

icien cy p ro n g , w e h av e s tated th at “rev iew o f c o u n se l’ s pe r f orm a nc e m us tbe hi ghl yde f e r e nt i a l , ” a nd w e w i l l “ a voi d s e c ond- gue s s i ng coun se l ’ s per form ance . ” O sborne v. T erry , 46 6 F . 3d 12 98 , 13 05 -06 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). T h u s, t o est ab l i sh d efi ci en tp erfo rm an ce, a p et i t i o n er m u st“ p ro v e b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tno c om pe t e ntc ouns e l w oul d ha ve t a ke n the a c t i on tha thi s c ouns e l di d t a ke . ” G r os s m a n v. M c D onough, 466 F . 3d 1325, 1345 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). C onc e rni ng the pr e

j udi c e pr ong, i ti s note nough f orthe de f

e nda ntt o s how th a t th e e rr o rh a ds o m e c o n c e iv ab le e f f e c t o n th e o u tc o m e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g . S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 3 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 7 . R a th e r , ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityis o n e s u f f ic ie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e . I d . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t5

2 0 6 8 . B ecau se a p et i t i o n er m u stm eetb o th p art s o f th e t est , w e n eed n o tad d ress the performance pron g i f the pet i t i on ercann otm ee tthe prej ud i ce pron g, and v i ce vers a. H ol l adayv. H al ey , 20 9 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 48 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). I n L e e , the c a s e r e l i e d on byG r i s s e ttt o s upporthi s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l cl ai m , a F l ori da courtof appeal s r ever se d a defendant ’ s c on vi ct i on base d on the f i ndi ng tha tthe s t a t e pr e s e nt e d i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

gui l tt o s us t a i n a bu rgl ary c on vi ct i on . 64 0 S o. 2d at12 6. T here , the st at e onl y pre se nt ed evi dence th at th e d ef

en d an t’ s f

in g erp rin ts w er e f

o u n do n th e o u tsid e s u rf ac e o f a ch u rc h ’s w i n d o w p an e, an dh e h ad cert ai n i t em s i n h i s p o ssessi o n . Id . at1 2 6 -2 7 . D efen se c ouns e l m ove d f

orJ O A a tthe c l os e of

the s t a t e ’ s c a s e , a r gui ng i ns uf f i c i e nc yof evi dence, w hi ch w as deni ed by the tri al court . Id. at12 7. In concl ud i ng that r e ve r s a l w a s r e qui r e d, the c ourtof appe a l s e xpl a i ne d: T he fa ct s of thi s c as e w ou l d l ea d a re as on abl e per son t o suspectthat th e d e f e n d a n t c o m m itte dth e b u r g la ryb u t th e ya r e n o t s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in th e c o n v ic tio n . C ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e c a n s u p p o rt a c onvi c t i on f

orac r i m e onl yi f

i ti s c ons i s t e ntw i th gui l ta nd i nc ons i s t e nt w i th a nyr e a s onabl e hypothe s i s of i nnoc e nc e . P r oof

tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s f

i nge rpr i ntw a s on the br oke n w i ndow pa ne i s not s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

g u ilt b e c au s e th e e x p e rt w itn e s s w a s u n ab le to e xc l ude the pos s i bi l i ty[ tha t ] the f i nge rpr i ntw a s pl a c e d on the out s i de o f th e wi n d o w. Id. (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). F l or i da“ l a w i s c l e a rtha tw he n the s t a t e r e l i e s s ol e l yupon f i nge rpr i nt6

e vi de nc e t o e s t abl i s h ade f e nda nt ’ s gui l t , the e vi de nc e m us tde m ons tr a t e tha tthe fi ng erpri nt s c ou l d h ave been m ade onl y w hen the cr i m e w as com m i tt ed. ” W illia m s v . S ta te , 7 4 0 S o .2 d2 7 , 2 8 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h u s , if th e o n ly e v id e n c e is f

in g e rp r in ts , a n dth e ya r e “f o u n do n a n ite m o rin ap la c e a c c e s s ib le to the generalpu bl i c . . . the defendanti s e nt i t l ed t o a j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al . ” I d. at 2 8 -2 9 (r ev er sin g d en ial o f J O A w h er e th e o n ly ev id en ce w as d ef en d an t’ s f i nge rpr i nt s on a“ V C R w hi c h ha d be e n a l ongs i de aw e l l - tr a ve l e d r oa d f or approx i m at el y 90 m i nu t es ”) ; se e a l so C . E . v. S t at e, 66 5 S o. 2d 10 97 , 10 98 -99 (F l a. D ist. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( fin d in g en ti tl em en t t o JO A ev en w h er e d ef en d an t’ s fi ng erpri ntw as foun d o n the ou t si de of a broken w i nd ow of a burgl ar i ze d p ol i ce v a n b e c au s e th e p r in t c o u ldh a v e b e e n m a d e w h ile th e v e h ic le w a s o u t in th e p u b lic vi s i t i ng c r i m e s c e ne s ) ; M i l e s v. S t a t e , 466 S o. 2d 239, 240 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1984) ( f i ndi ng J O A appr opr i a t e w he r e the onl ye vi de nc e w a s af i nge rpr i nton a be nc h a c c e s s i bl e t o the ge ne r a l publ i c a nd on as t or e w i ndow f r a m e , be c aus e the d e f e n d a n t c o u ldh a v e b e e n w in d o w - s h o p p in g ) . C o n v e r s e ly , F lo r id ac o u rts h a v e f o u n dth a t e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in conv i ct i on s w hen fi ng erpri nt s w er e f ou nd i n are as i nacc es si bl e t o the general publ i c . S e e K . S . v. S t a t e , 814 S o. 2d 1190, 1193 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2002) (a ff i rm i ng deni al of JO A w here defe nd ant ’ s f i ng erpri ntw as foun d o n k i t chen7

w i ndow l oc a t e d s e ve n f e e tabove gr ound l e ve l on the ba c k of ahous e ) ; W a l ke rv. S t a t e , 6 5 6 S o . 2 d9 5 0 , 9 5 0 - 5 1 ( F l a . Di s t . C t . Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( u p h o l d i n g d e n i a l o f J OA w he r e f i nge rpr i nt s w e r e f

ound on the w i ndow s i l l of abe dr oom w i ndow on the back of the ho use) . W e ne e d notde c i de w he the rw e ow e de f e r e nc e t o the s t a t e c ourtde c i s i on p u r s u a n tt o § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) b e c au s e e v e n r e v i e wi n g Gr i s s e tt ’ s c l a i m d e n o v o we co n cl u d e th atth e cl ai m fai l s. I n o r d e rto m e e t th e S tr ic k la n ds ta n d a r d , G r is s e tt m u s t s h o w th a t, h a dh is co u n sel su p p o rt ed h i s m o t i o n fo r JO A w i th casel aw , n am el y L ee, th ere w as a r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityth a t th e tr ia l ju d g e w o u ldh a v e g r a n te dh is m o tio n f o rJ O A . S e e S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 8 . W h ile G r is s e tt is c o rr e c t in a s s e rt i ng tha tL e e s upport s hi s pos i t i on, s e e L e e , 640 S o. 2d 125, othe rde c i s i ons by F l or i dac ourt s m a ke af

a vor abl e out c om e f

orG r i s s e ttl e s s c e rt a i n, s e e K . S . , 814 S o. 2d 11 90 ; W al ker, 65 6 S o. 2d 95 0. S peci fi ca l l y, F l ori da court s m ake a d is tin c tio n b a s e do n w h e th e ro rn o t th e lo c a tio n o f ar e c o v e r e df

in g e rp r in t is p u b l i c l ya c c e s s i b l e , a n di ti s n o tc l e a rh e r e w h e th e ras t o rm d o o ro f ap r i v a t e h o me w oul d be c ons i de r e d publ i c l ya c c e s s i bl e unde rF l or i dal a w . S e e W i l l i a m s , 740 S o. 2d a t28- 29. H a d G r i s s e tt ’ s c ouns e l r a i s e d L e e , i ti s f a i rt o a s s um e tha tthe g o v e rn m e n two u l dh a v e d i s t i n g u i s h e di t s f a c t s o rr a i s e dc o n tr a ryF l o r i d ac a s e l a w,8

w hi c h doe s notl e a d t o ac e rt a i n r e s ul tba s e d on the s e f a c t s . S e e L e e , 640 S o. 2d 1 2 5 ; K .S ., 8 1 4 S o .2 d1 1 9 0 ; W a lk e r , 6 5 6 S o .2 d9 5 0 ; W illia m s , 7 4 0 S o .2 d2 7 ; C .E ., 6 6 5 S o .2 d1 0 9 7 ; M ile s , 4 6 6 S o .2 d2 3 9 . A s are sul t , i tcann otbe sa i d thatthere w as a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of a di ff er entand m ore f

avorabl e out com e e ven i f G ri ss ett ’ s c ou nsel ra i se d L ee . S ee S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2068. T hus , G r i s s e ttdoe s notm e e tthe p r e j u d i c e p r o n g o f

S tr i c k l a n d . S e e i d . ; E s p y , 4 4 3 F . 3 da t1 3 6 5 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.