FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 16, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 9- 11 59 2 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 99 4- CV-J -2 5- HTS ELVIN B. SIMPS ON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us WALTER A. MCNEIL, Secr et ary of

th e Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, St at e o f Fl or id a, BILL MCC OLLUM, Att orne y Gene ral , Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (Oct ob er 1 6, 2 00 9)Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d WALTE R, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. PER CURI AM: Inth is cas e, th e fed eral di st ric t co urt g ran te d El vi n B . Sim ps on habe as rel ie f
on hi s cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l fo r fai li ng to advi se hi m ab ou t t he
co ns eque nc es of r eject in g apl ea o fferfro m th e St at e. The S ta te ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng Sim ps on rel ie f an d o rd eri ng th e St at e to eit he r rel eas e Si m

ps on for ti m e se rv edor i m

po se a se nt en ce n otto ex ceedth e am ou ntof ti m e p ro vi de d i n t he pl ea o ffer . Becau se we co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng on th is pa rti cu la r cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l an d e rredwhen itgra nt ed Si m ps onhabe as rel ie f, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er an d re nd er jud gm en t fo r th e St at e. I. BACKG ROUND The Sta te ch arg edSim

ps on with o ne co un t o f se co ndde gr ee m ur de r with a fir earm forth e m ur de r of hi s wi fe. Afte r a tria l, the jury returne d agu il ty verd ic t
an d fo un d t ha t Si m

ps on po ss es se d afir earm when he co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r. At

Hon o rable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judg e for the Western District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

designation. 2se nt en ci ng , th e st at e tr ia l co urt i m po se d asen te nc e o f li fe i n p ris on , bas edonth e st atut ory gro un d tha t t he m

ur de r was co m

m it te d i n t he pre se nc e o f a fam il y m em be r, th e v ic ti m ’s ni ece. Se e Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.0 01 6( 3) (m ) (1 99 4) (rep eal ed 19 98 ). The s ta te ap pe ll at e co urt af firm edSim

ps on ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e. Si mps on v. St at e , 67 6 S o. 2 d 4 34 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 96 ). Si m ps on fil eda m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in th e st at e tr ia l co urt. Am on g h is m an y

cla im s, Si m

ps on all eg edth athi s t ria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to advi se hi m

pro pe rly rega rd in g the de ta il s o f th e St at e’s pl ea o ffer . After
co nduc ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng on an ot he r cl ai m , th e st at e tr ia l co urt s umm ari ly de ni edrel ie f. On ap pe al , th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt re ve rs edan d i nd ic at edth atth e st at e tr ia l co urt s ho ul d c on du ctfurth er rev ie w of Si m ps on ’s cla im

th athi s co un se l di d n otpro pe rly adv is e h im reg ard in g the Sta te ’s pl ea o ffer
. Si mps on v. St at e , 74 1 So . 2d12 41 , 12 42 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 99 ). On re m an d, t he st at e tr ia l co urt co nduc te d a no th er ev id en ti ary he ari ng , fo un d tha t n o p le a o fferex is te d, an d d en ie d S im ps on rel ie f. The s ta te co urt fo un d, in pe rti ne ntpa rt, t ha t Si m ps on co ul d n otm eethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth ere was a fi rm

pl ea o fferth athe co ul d h av e acc ep te d. Th e st at e co urt n ot edth at Si m ps on ’s tri al co un se l, Bu rto n Gre en , app eare d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng bu t fai le d t o t es ti fy . In l ig htof t he ab se nc e o f te st im on y or o th er ev id en ce t o c on firm 3th e ex is te nc e o f a p le a o ffer , th e st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d S im ps on ’s m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. The s ta te ap pe ll at e co urt af firm ed
. Si mps on v. Stat e , 79 2 S o. 2 d 47 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 01 ). InSep te m

be r 20 01 , Sim

ps on fil eda su cces si ve m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in st at e co urt, ra is in g fi ve cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l. Am on g S im

ps on ’s cla im s was th athi s p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou ns el was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to cal l Bu rto n Gre ento tes ti fy at t he sec on d e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . Sim

ps onam en de d h is m ot io n t o i nc lu de a cl ai m th atne wly di sc ov ered
ev id en ce, wh ic h c ou ldno t h av e b een di sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y th ro ug h due di li ge nc e, wou ldha ve ch an ge d t he ou tc om e o f hi s s eco ndev id en ti ary he ari ng . In s up po rt o f hi s co nt en ti on , Sim

ps onatt ach eda rece nt ly recei ve d l et te r pu rp orte dl y writ te n b y Jo hn Git ch of

f, who ass is te d S im

ps on ’s tri al co un se l, s ta ti ng th atGit ch of f rec al le d a d is cu ss io n abo utth e St at e’s pl ea o fferof 1 3 years. Sp eci fic al ly, th e le tt er s ta te d: “ I sp ok e wit h B urto n Gre enab ou t t he Sta te ’s pl ea o ffer . Burto n i s ag ai ns t you acce pt in g apl ea o f 13 y ears . He says y ou r m ax im um sen te nc e is aro un d 1 8.6 y ears if c on vi ct ed . I’ m

in cl in edto ag ree wi th Bu rto n.” (R. 47 at 3 2 (quo ti ng App
. Q to th e Sec on d Am . Pet ., R. 35 )). The st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d t he po st -co nv ic ti onm ot io n a s u nt im el y an d
su cces si ve an d fo un d t ha t cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f po st -co nv ic ti on 4co un se l ar e n otco gn iz ab le in a st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n. Th e st at e tr ia l co urt

al so fou ndth atth e cl ai m

of n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce i nv ol ve d apo st -co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng , no t a n ew tr ia l, an d t hu s was no t co gn iz ab le . The s ta te ap pe ll at e co urt af

firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f rel ie f. Si m ps on lat er fi le d ast at e h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on , aga in all eg in g the cla im of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l fo r fai li ng to pre se ntcred ib le
ev id en ce atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng co nc ern in g t he Sta te ’s all eg edpl ea o fferof 1 3 y ears . In the pe ti ti on , Sim ps onst at edth athi s p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou ns el in fo rm ed hi m th atif Gre enwas c al le d t o t es ti fy in th e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng , he o nl y

wou ldha ve st at edth athe di d n otrem em be r an yth in g abo utth e al le ge d p le a o ffer . Sim

ps onst at edth atbe cau se of Gre en ’s pu rp orte d rep res en ta ti on to Sim

ps on ’s po st -co nv ic ti onco un se l, Si m ps on di d n otcal l Gre en to tes ti fy . The s ta te tri al co urt d en ie d S im ps on habe as rel ie f an d t he ap pe ll at e co urt af firm ed
. Se e Simp so n v . Stat e , 83 2 S o. 2 d 9 29 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 02 ). Si m ps on th enfil eda fed eral habe as pe ti ti on pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 (2 00 0) , rai si ng , am on g o th er ar gu m en ts , hi s cl ai m th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to advi se hi m pro pe rly abo utth e co ns eque nc es of d ecl in in g a p le a o fferfro m

th e St at e. Sim

ps on am en de d h is pe ti ti on , andth e St at e fi le d a
res po ns e. Insupp ort o f hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve tri al co un se l, Si m ps onatt ach edto 5hi s p et it io n t he 19 95 Git ch of f le tt er d es cri be d abo ve an d a n a ffi da vi t fr om Si m ps on ’s tri al co un se l Bu rto n Gre en . The d is tri ctco urt o rd eredanev id en ti ary he ari ng on th is cla im

un de r § 2 25 4( e)(2 ). The St at e fi le d am ot io n fo r 1
reco ns id erat io n, ar gu in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt was pre cl ud edfro m co nduc ti ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e sa m e cl ai m co ns id eredby the st at e tr ia l co urt af te r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se Sim ps on di d n otm eetth e requi rem en ts enum erat edin § 2 25 4( e)(2 ). The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he Sta te ’s m ot io n andco nduc te d t he
ev id en ti ary he ari ng . After t he he ari ng , th e fed eral di stric t co urt fo un d, co nt rary to th e St at e co urt’s fi nd in g, t ha t t he Sta te ha d e xt en de d apl ea o ffer to Sim ps on an d th atSim ps on ’s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in fo rm hi m ab ou t t he ful l
co ns eque nc es of r eject in g t he pl ea o ffer . The d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er co m m an de d t he St at e to eit he r rel eas e Si m ps on forti m e se rv edor i m po se a se nt en ce n otto ex ceed 13 y ears , as p ro vi de d i n t he pl ea o ffer . The St at e th enpe rfec te d t hi s ap pe al
. II . ISSUE Whe th er the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng Sim ps on an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f tr ia l co un se l an d e rred in gra nt in g S im

ps on habe as rel ie f.

The district court also denied Simps on’s other claims for relief
. The denial of those claims 1 is not at issue in thi s appea l. 6II I. STANDARD OF REVIE W

W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng . Se e Atw at er

v. Cr os by , 45 1 F .3d79 9, 8 11 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (rev ie win g de ni al of e vi de nt ia ry

he ari ng ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er gr an ti ng Sim

ps on habe as rel ie f. W

oo d v . Alle n , 54 2 F .3d12 81 , 12 85 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). The d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f act , in cl ud in g t he di st ric t co urt’s de te rm in at io n re ga rd in g S im ps on ’s di li ge nc e inde ve lo pi ng th e fac tu al ba si s o f hi s cl ai m in th e st at e co urt, ar e subjec t t o t he cle arl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ard
. Hal l v. Hea d , 31 0 F .3d68 3, 6 90 , 69 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Howev er, o urrev ie w is “ gr eat ly ci rcu m sc rib edan d i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l t o t he st at e co urts .” Cr aw fo rd v. Head , 31 1 F .3d12 88 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). IV. DIS CUSSI ON Si xt h Am en dm en t i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l cl ai m s ar e an al y zed
un de r th e st an da rd s es tabl is he d i n Stri ckl an d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 10 4 S
. Ct . 20 52 (19 84 ). Und er Stri ckl an d : Fi rs t, the de fen da ntm

us t s ho w th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . Thi s re qu ire s s ho win g t ha t co un se l m ad e err or s s o s eri ou s t ha t co un se l was no t fu nc ti on in g a s t he “ co un se l” gu aran te edth e d efen da ntby the Six th Am en dm en t. Sec on d, t he de fen da ntm us t s ho w th atth e d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e d efen se . This requi res sh owi ng th atco un se l’s erro rs were s o s eri ou s as to de pr iv e th e d efen da ntof afai r tr ia l, a t ria l wh os e res ul t i s re li ab le . Unl es s a d efen dantm ak es bo th sh owi ng s, i t ca nn otbe sai d 7th atth e co nv ic ti on . . . res ul te d fr om a br eak do wn i n the adve rs ary pr oc es s th atren de rs th e res ul t unr el iabl e. Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 ; se e a ls o Ga skin v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o f Co rr . , 49 4 F .3d99 7, 1 00 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . In o rd er t o s us ta in a sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e, Si m

ps on ha d t o d em on st rat e a rea so nabl e p ro babi li ty tha t b utforhi s co un se l’s erro rs in fai li ng to in fo rm hi m of t he co ns eque nc es of n ottak in g t he pu rp orte d 1 3 year pl ea o ffer , he wo ul d h av e acc ep te d t he pro se cu ti on ’s off er. Se e Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 ; Hal l , 31 0 F .3dat 7 00 . There fo re, Si m ps onha d t o e st ab li sh th atth ere was , infact , a pl ea o ffer forles s t ha n t he li fe
se nt en ce h e rec ei ve d t ha t h e co ul d h av e acc ep te d h adhe be enpro pe rly adv is edof th e ri skof ali fe s en te nc e b y hi s co un se l. The st at e co urt d et erm in edth atSim ps on fai le d t o m eetth e Stri ckl an d pr ejud ic e p ro ng be cau se “ th ere [ was ] no pl ea o ffer to en fo rce i n t hi s ca se .” The st at e co urt t ria l ju dg e st at edin pe rti ne ntpa rt:

So I jus t h av e a rea l p ro bl em with fi gu rin g o ut , if the re was a pl ea of fer, wh atitwas. Th e aff

id av it s wh ic h o ccas io ne d t hi s ev id en ti ary he ari ng ta lkin term s o f 13 y ears ki ndof r an ge . I hav e n o i nd ic at io n wh at so ev er th ere was a fi rm

pl ea o fferm ad e in th is cas e, Mr. Si m ps on . I justdo n’t h av e it . It’s y ou r bu rd en . Mr. Greensathe re atlea stun ti l t he rul e was in vo ke d, an d h e cam e b ackin aft er we co nc lu de d t he he ari ng . Mr. Green ha d a cces s to th e St at e. Mr. Baus ch ha s t he Sta te Att orne y ’s fil es . Som eb od y co ul d ha ve tes ti fie d t ha t t he re was a pl ea o ffer . Nob od y ha s t es ti fie d t ha t t he re was a pl ea o ffer
. 8I th in k t ha t t he re was no th in g m or e th andi sc us si on , whi ch do es no t

gi ve y ouan yth in g t o a ccep t. Itjus t g iv es y ouso m ethi ng m or e to tal k abo ut . Mr. Gree n m ay

ha ve to ldy outh atth e lo w endof t he gu id el in es was 1 3 y ears , whi ch I gu es s was rig ht . Everybo dy seem s t o a gr ee t o t ha t. Bu t I ha ve to ag ree wi th Mr. Ho lm es th atst ep on e h ere i s t o e st ab li sh a pl ea o ffer , an d I t hi nkitha s t o b e es tabl is he d b y – m ay be witho utMr. Bau sc h’s te st im on y , Mr. Si m

ps on , m ay

be th ere wo ul dn ’t be anyth in g e ls e. Andy ou r te st im on y was n otim

pe ach ed , bu t i t was cert ai nl y – b ecau se th at ’s y ou r un de rs ta nd in g a ndno bo dy can i m pe ach y ou r un de rs ta nd in g, an d n ob od y can im pe ach whaty ouwere t ol d e xc ep t t he pe rs onwho to ldy outh ator so m eb od y

who he ardth e co nv ers at io n; an d t ha t p ers on di dn ’t tes ti fy to da y . Bu t ce rta in ly the tes ti m on y of t he Sta te is co nt rary to t he no ti on of a firm pl ea o fferin th is cas e. The C ou rt wi ll fin d t ha t t he re i s n o p le a o fferto en fo rce i n t hi s ca se . . . . The C ou rt, the refo re, fi nd s t ha t co un se l co ul d n ot ha ve be enin effe ct iv e in mis advi si ng be cau se on e o f th e p ro ng s b ei ng th at th ere was a pl ea o ffer

to acce pt , th atco ul d h av e b een , wou ldha ve be en acce pt ed , has no t b eenm et . (R. 52 at 1 7– 18 (qu ot in g Tr. o f May 1, 20 00 Sta te Ct. Ev id en ti ary Hr’g, R. 39 , Ex. N at66 –6 7) .) Si m ps on att ach edto hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on ev id en ce n otpre se nt edto th e st at e co urt as supp ort fo r hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o a de qu at el y

ex pl ai n t he ris k o f go in g t o t ria l i ns te adof a ccep ti ng th e St at e’s pl ea o ffer . The d is tri ctco urt o rd eredanev id en ti ary he ari ng on th is cla im
an d a fte r th e h eari ng co nc lu de d t ha t Si m ps on m ethi s b ur de n o f pr ov in g Stri ckl an d pr ejud ic e. The d is tri ctco urt t he n o rd eredhabe as rel ie f.
9The Ant i-Te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 1 04 -1 32 , 11 0 S ta t. 1 21 4, p ro vi de s t he st an da rd s t he fed eral co urts
m us t fo ll ow i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r to gra nta pe ti ti on er h ab eas rel ie f. AEDPA 2 st at es in pa rt t ha t a f

ed eral co urt i s p recl ud edfro m grant in g fe de ral habe as rel ie f
un le ss th e st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f a cl ai m

“ (1 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas 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 la w, as d et erm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2) res ul te d i n a de ci si on th atwas b as edonanun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts in li 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) . “ A st at e-co urt d eci si on wil l ce rta in ly be co nt rary to . . . cle arl y est ab li sh edpre ced en t if t he st at e co urt ap pl ie s a rul e th atco nt rad ic ts th e g ov ern in g l aw se t fo rth in [Supr em e Co urt] cas es .” W il li ams v. Ta

yl or , 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 40 5, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 49 5, 15 19 (20 00 ). Sim

ps on ’s cla im

th athe was d ep riv edof e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f
co un se l i s an al y zedun de r th e “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” pro ng of § 22 54 (d )(1 ).

“ Und er [AEDPA’s] ‘ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n’ claus e, a fed eral habe as co urt m ay gr an t t he writif t he st at e co urt i de nt ifi es th e co rrec t g ov ern in g l eg al pri nc ip le fro m

Simps on filed his fede ral habea s petition afte r the eff ective date of AEDPA, April 24, 1996, 2 and, there fore , the standards enunciated in AEDPA apply
. S ee L i n d h v. Murphy , 521 U.S. 320, 326–27, 117 S. Ct . 2059, 2063 (1997). 10[th e Supr em e] Cou rt’s d eci si on s b utun reas on ab ly app li es th atpri nc ip le to th e

fact s o f th e p ris on er’s cas e.” Id
. at 4 13 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 23
. AEDPA als o “ requi res fed eral habe as co urts to pre su m e th e co rrec tn es s o f st at e co urts ’ factua l fi nd in gs un le ss ap pl ic an ts reb utth is pre su m pt io n wi th ‘ cl ear an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.’” Sc hr ir o v . Lan dr ig an , 55 0 U.S. 4 65 , 47 3– 74 , 12 7 S
. Ct . 19 33 , 19 39 –4 0 (2 00 7) (ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 )). “ Incas es wher e an ap pl ic an t fo r fed eral habe as rel ie f is no t b arre d fr om ob ta in in g a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng by 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 2) [du e to hi s o wn l ackof d il ig en ce], th e d eci si on to gra ntsu ch a he ari ng res ts in th e d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Id
. at 4 68 , 12 7 S. Ct . at 1 93 7. “ Inde ci di ng whet he r to gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng , a fed eral
co urt m us t co ns id er wh ethe r su ch a he ari ng co ul d e nabl e anap pl ic an t t o p ro ve th e pe ti ti on ’s factua l al le ga ti on s, wh ic h, i f true , wou lden ti tl e th e ap pl ic an t t o fe de ral habe as rel ie f.” Id
. at47 4, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 40 . Thu s, i f th e rec or d re fu te s t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m s o r ot he rwis e p recl ud es habe as rel ie f, a d is tri ctco urt n eedno t co nduc t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Id
. Whe re a p et it io ne r ha s n otdi li ge nt ly pr es en te d t he factua l b as is of h is cla im forrel ie f in st at e co urt, h owe ve r, AEDPA fu rth er re st ric ts th e fed eral co urts ’ au th or it y to gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng on a pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m , st at in g:

11If the ap pl ic an t h as fai le d t o d ev el op th e fac tu al ba si s o f a cl ai m in St at e co urt p ro ceed in gs , th e co urt s ha ll no t h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on th e cl ai m

un le ss th e ap pl ic an t s ho ws tha t – (A) th e cl ai m

rel ie s o n – (i) a ne w rul e o f co ns ti tu ti on al law, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Supr em e Co urt, tha t was pre vi ou sl y

un av ai labl e; or (ii ) a fac tu al pre di cat e th atco ul d n otha ve be en pr ev io us ly dis co ve redth ro ug h t he ex erci se of due di li ge nc e; an d (B) t he fact s u nd erl y in g t he cla im wou ldbe su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh by cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t b utforco ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou ndth e ap pl ic an t g ui lt y of the un de rlyin g o ffen se . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(2 ). A pet it io ne r ha s “ fai le d t o d ev el op th e fac tu al ba si s o f [h is ] cl ai m

inSta te co urt p ro ceed in gs ” if he lac ke d d il ig en ce i n p res en ti ng th e factua l b as is of h is habe as cla im in st at e co urt o r in see ki ng th e o pp ortu ni ty to de ve lo p e vi de nc e in a st at e h eari ng . Bree dl ov e v. Mo or e , 27 9 F .3d95 2, 9 59 –6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)
. The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t b y fai li ng to cal l Bu rto n Gre enat t he
ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Sim ps on ’s in it ia l m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, § 22 54 (e)( 2) was trig ge red . The d is tri ctco urt s ta te d i n p ert in en t p art :

The reco rdbe fo re thi s C ou rt r efl ect s tha t M r. Green was a va il ab le to te st ify at th e May

1, 2 00 0, ev id en ti ary he ari ng ; h owe ve r, he di d n ottes ti fy
. As n ot edby the tri al jud ge , Mr. Green was i n t he co urtro om un ti l t he rul e o f se qu es tra ti on of wi tn es se s was in vo ke d a ndth enhe reap pe aredaft er the co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng . Howev er, Mr . Git ch of f’s Janu ary 21 , 19 95 , 12le tt er, wh ic h was rece iv edby Peti ti on er i n 2 00 1, was no t d is co ve redun ti l

aft er the May 1, 20 00 , evi de nt ia ry he ari ng . Furthe r, Mr. Gi tc ho ff h ad pa ss edaway

be fo re the ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Peti ti on er h as reque st edan ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th is cla im . There fo re, p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 2) (A)(i i), t hi s C ou rt wi ll gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng on th is cla im
. (R. 4 7 a t 3 2– 33 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Si m ps on was n otdi li ge nt in de ve lo pi ng th e fac tu al ba si s o f hi s cl ai m in th e st at e co urt und er the cle arl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ard
. Hal l , 31 0 F .3dat 6 97 . The d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g was no t erro ne ou s, an d t he di st ric t co urt was co rrec t t ha t § 22 54 (e)( 2) was t rig ge redso as to li m itSim

ps on ’s abi li ty to o bt ai n an e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . The d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n, h owe ve r, whe n i t d et erm in edth atth e requi rem en ts of § 22 54 (e)( 2) were s at is fie d. Where th e p et it io ne r di d n otdi li ge nt ly dev el op th e factua l b as is of h is cla im

in st at e co urt, el em en ts of b ot h § 22 54 (e)( 2) (A) an d § 22 54 (e)( 2) (B) m

us t b e sa ti sf

ie d b efo re a d is tri ctco urt ca n g ran t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Sect io n 2 25 4( e)(2 )(B) pro vi de s t ha t t he di stric t co urt m ay ord er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng if “ th e fac ts un de rlyin g t he cla im wou ldbe su ffi ci en t t o es tabl is h b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th atbu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou ndth e ap pl ic an t g ui lt y of the un de rlyin g of fen se .” The re qu ire m en t o f § 2 25 4( e)(2 )(B) was n otsat is fie d h ere. Th e St at e’s
13al le ge d p ro fferof a13 y ear p le a o ffer in no way

ev id en ces Sim

ps on ’s in no cen ce, no r do es Sim

ps on att em

ptto arg ue th atitdo es . Se e a ls o W il li ams , 52 9 U.S. at 43 5, 1 20 S. Ct. at14 90 (refe rri ng to th e requi rem en t o f § 2 25 4( e)(2 )(B) as “ a co nv in ci ng cla im

of i nn oc en ce”) ; Bur ris v. Pa rk e , 11 6 F .3d25 6, 2 58 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ) (s ta ti ng th at§ 2 25 4( e)(2 ) do es no t ap pl y to pro ceed in gs reg ard in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l dur in g s en te nc in g) . There fo re we co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitord eredanev id en ti ary he ari ng on Si m ps on ’s cla im
. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atno ev id en ti ary he ari ng sh ou ldha ve be enhe ld , we co ns id er o nl y

th e ev id en ce ad du cedat t he st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d a tt ach edto Si m ps on ’s pet it io n i n o ur de no vo rev ie w of the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f habe as rel ie f un de r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). 3 The reco rdrefu te s Si m

ps on ’s con te nt io n t ha t t he Sta te m ad e a fi rm pl ea of fer t o h im . The t es ti m on y fro m th e st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng in di cat es th at Si m ps ondi d n otha ve an y

di rectco nv ers at io n wi th th e St at e’s Att orne y , Rus s Bau sc h, re ga rd in g apl ea, n or was t he re an y

do cu m en t i n e vi de nc e th at co rro bo rat edth e al le ge d p le a o ffer . Bau sc h t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adno reco ll ect io n o f
For purposes of discussion, we consider all of the additional evidenc e proff ere d by Simps on 3 with his petition. We do not he re opineon the appr opriatene ss of considering evidenc e that could have be en, but was not, ra ised duringthe state c ourt evidentiar y hearing. 14th e St at e m ak in g afirm pl ea o fferto Sim

ps on . The o th er wi tn es se s atth e st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , in cl ud in g S im ps on , in di cat edno th in g m or e th anth atSim ps on m ay ha ve di sc us se d t he po ss ib il it y of a13 y ear p le a wit h h is att orne y . Bas edon th is tes ti m on y , th e st at e co urt fo un d t ha t n o p le a o fferex is te d. Th e ad di ti on al
ev id en ce p ro ffer edby Sim ps on do es no t d em on st rat e b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce tha t t hi s fi nd in g was erro ne ou s. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). The Git ch of

f le tt er, quo te d abo ve , di d n otco nt rad ic t t he st at e co urt’s fin di ng th atth ere was no pl ea o fferex te nd ed . The l et te r, atm os t, i nd ic at es th at Si m ps onan d h is co un se l t ho ug htth ere was anoff er b y th e St at e. It d oe s n otpro ve th atth ere was anoff

er. Lik e th e Git ch of

f le tt er, the Green affi da vi t d oe s n ot co nt rad ic t t he st at e co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t n o p le a ex is te d. Atm os t, the affi da vi t in di cat es th atth ere was a di sc us si on of apo ss ib le pl ea. Acco rd in gl y , nei th er do cu m en t p ro vi de s cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce t o re bu t t he st at e co urt’s fa ctua l fin di ng th atno firm

pl ea o fferex is te d. W it ho uta fi rm

pl ea o ffer , Sim

ps on can no t es tabl is h t he pre jud ic e p ro ng of Stri ckl an d , andhi s cl ai m forhabe as rel ie f ba se d o n h is tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ri skof g oi ng to tri al in st eadof a ccep ti ng a pu rp orte d p le a of fer fr om th e St at e fai ls . Accor di ng ly, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er gr an ti ng Sim

ps on habe as rel ie f an d re nd er jud gm en t fo r th e St at e. 15REVERSED an d R ENDERED.

16