FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 19, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 11892 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 5 4 2 - C V- T - 2 4 - E AJ L E R O Y M C K I N Z I E , 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 , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , 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

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 19, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A ppe l l a ntL e r oy M c K i nz i e , aF l or i dapr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , appe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to d is m is s , a s p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d , h is c la im i n hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l on the c ha r ge of c a rry i ng ac onc e a l e d w e apon. W e gr a nt e d a C ert i fi ca t e of A pp ea l abi l i ty ( “ C O A ”) on the i ss ue of “ w hether the di stri ctcourt erre d i n d enyi ng as procedural l y barre d app el l ant ’ s c l ai m thatthe evi dence w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor thi s c onvi c t i on. ” O n appe a l , M c K i nz i e a r gue s tha tthe s u b s ta n c e o f

h is a r g u m e n t b e f

o r e th e s ta te c o u r ts w a s th a t th e S ta te h a d f a ile d to m ee ti t s burden o f e st abl i shi ng thathe had con ce al ed a f i re arm i n a l ocat i on that w as no thi s r es i dence. H e a rgued thathi s c l ai m w as on e of i nsuffi ci entevi dence, a nd i tw a s f

a i r l y pr e s e nt e d t o the s t a t e c ourt s . H e c ont e nde d tha the r e f e rr e d t o the du e proces s r ea sonabl e dou btst andard before the st at e c ou rt s, w hi ch prov i ded them w ith a n o p p o r tu n ity to a d d r e s s h is f e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . W e c on du cta de no vo r e v ie w o f ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t a h ab e a s p e titio n e ris p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d f r o m r a is in g ac la im in f e d e r a l c o u r t. A tw ate rv . Cr os by , 4 5 1 F .3 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 127 S . C t . 951 ( 2007) . I n J

a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , th e S u p re m e C o u rt h eld th at a s tate p riso n er ’s c l a i m tha tthe e vi de nc e i n s uppor tof hi s c onvi c t i on w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o ha ve l e d a rat i o n al tri er o f factt o fi n d h i m g u i l ty b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b tco n st i tu t es a3

f e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m tha ti s c ogni z abl e i n af e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ng,

“ a s s um i ng tha ts t a t e r e m e di e s ha ve be e n e xhaus t e d, a nd tha tno i nde pe nde nta nd a de qua t e s t a t e gr ound s t a nds a s aba r . ” 443 U . S . 307, 321, 99 S . C t . 2781, 2790 (197 9) (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A s J ac k s on i ndi c a t e s , be f

or e br i ngi ng ahabe a s pe t i t i on i n f e de r a l c our t , the pe t i t i one rm us te xhaus ta l l s t a t e c our tr e m e di e s tha ta r e a va i l abl e f orc ha l l e ngi ng hi s c onvi c t i on, e i the ron di r e c tappe a l ori n as t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on m ot i on, 443 U .S . a t 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 1 ; 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 5 4 ( b ) , ( c ) . T o e x h au s t s ta te r e m e d ie s , th e p e titio n e rm u s t “f a ir ly p r e s e n t[ ]” h is f

e d e r a l c la im s to th e s ta te c o u r t, p r o v id in g it w ith “a n o p p o r tu n ity to ap p ly c o n tr o llin g le g a l p r in c ip le s to th e f a c ts bear i ng up on them . ” H en ry v. D ep ’t

o f C o rr. , 19 7 F . 3d 13 61 , 13 66 (11th C i r. 1999) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ I f s t a t e c our t s a r e t o be gi ve n the o p p o r tu n ity to c o rr e c t a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f p r is o n e r s ’ f

e d e r a l r ig h ts , th e y m u s t . . . be al ert ed t o the fa ctthatthe pri soners ar e a ss ert i ng cl ai m s und erthe U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . ” D u n ca n v. H en ry , 513 U . S . 364, 365- 66, 115 S . C t . 887, 888 (1 9 9 5 ). H o w ev er, th e p et i t i o n er i s n o tn ecessaril y req u i red t o ci t e “ b o o kan d v erse on the fe dera l const i tut i on . ” P i c ard v . C onnor , 404 U . S . 270, 278, 92 S . C t . 509, 5 1 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t “o r d in a r ily as ta te pri soner does not‘ fa i rl y pre se nt ’ a c l ai m t o a st at e c ou rti f thatcourtm ustre ad4

be y ond ape t i t i on orabr i e f ( oras i m i l a rdoc um e nt ) tha tdoe s nota l e r ti tt o the pr e s e nc e of

af e de r a l c l a i m i n or de rt o f i nd m a t e r i a l , s uc h a s al ow e rc our topi ni on i n the ca se , thatdo es so. ” B a ldw i n v. R eese , 541 U . S . 27, 32, 124 S . C t . 1347, 13 51 (200 4). “ Iti s notenou gh thatal l the fa ct s nec es saryt o sup po rtthe fe dera l cl ai m w er e bef

ore the st at e c ou rt s, or thata s om ew hatsi m i l arst at e- l aw cl ai m w as m ade. ” A n derso n v. H

a rless , 459 U . S . 4, 6, 103 S . C t . 276, 277, 74 L . E d. 2d 3 (198 2).

“ T he pu rpose of am ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al i s t o t es tthe l egal suff i ci encyof the evi dence pres ent ed by the [S ] t at e. ” H a r r is v . S ta te , 954 S o. 2d 12 60 , 12 61 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 07 ). T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rthas hel d that th e r e is “s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u s ta in ac o n v ic tio n if , a f te rv ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the S t at e, a r at i on al tri erof fa ctcoul d fi nd the exi st ence of the el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” B a u g h v . S ta te , 961 S o. 2d 19 8, 20 4 (F l a. 20 07 ). T he st atut ory provi si on s w i th res pectt o a conceal ed f i r e a rm d o n o tap p l y wh e n a n i n d i v i d u a l p o s s e s s e s th e f i r e a rm wi th i n h i s o wn ho m e. F l a. S t at . § 7 90 . 25 (3)( n) (200 6). W e m ayre vi ew the m er i t s of acl ai m i n the fi rs ti nst ance w hen a di stri ct c o u r t im p r o p e r ly f

in d s th a t ac la im is p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d . See P eopl es v. C a m p b e ll , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 3 5 - 3 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) .5

In re vi ew i ng a s t at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on denyi ng habeas re l i ef , w e a re proh i bi t ed f r om gr a nt i ng habe a s r e l i e f unl e s s the s t a t e de c i s i on w a s ( 1) “ c ontr a ry t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es , ” or ( 2) “ base d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm 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 ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . M o r e o v e r , f a c tu a l f in d in g s o f

s ta te court s are pres um ed t o b e c orre ct , and the pet i t i on ercan rebutthem on l y by c l ear a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . A st at e c ou rtdeci si on i s “ contraryt o” cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw i f e i ther

“ ( 1) the s t a t e c our tappl i e d arul e tha tc ontr a di c t s the gove rni ng l a w s e tf or th by S u p rem e C o u rtcase l aw , o r (2 ) w h en faced w i th m at eri al l y i n d i st i n g u i sh ab l e fact s, the st at e c ou rtarri ved ata r es ul tdi ff er entfr om thatre ac hed i n a S up re m e C ou rt ca se . ” P utm an v . H

e ad , 2 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A n “u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on ” of c l ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw m ayoccur i f the st at e c ou rt “id e n tif ie s th e c o rr e c t le g a l ru le f r o m S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e la w b u t u n r e a s o n ab ly appl i es thatrul e t o the fa ct s of the pet i t i on er ’ s c as e. ” I d. “A n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n m a y a ls o o c c u rif as ta te c o u r t u n r e a s o n ab ly e x te n d s , o ru n r e a s o n ab ly decl i nes t o ext end, a l egal pri nci pl e f rom S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw t o a new cont ext . ” I

d. A st at e c ou rt ’ s s um m ary, un expl ai ned rej ec t i on of a c on st i tut i on al6

is s u e q u a lif

ie s a s a n a d

ju d ic a tio n th a t is e n title d to d e f e r e n c e . W

r i ght v . Se c ’ y f or D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 2 7 8 F . 3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). F o r § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ) t o ap p l y, the st at e c ou rti s r equi re d o nl y t o rej ec ta c l ai m on the m er i t s, no tt o p rovi de an e x p la n a tio n . I

d. at12 55 . A st at e c ou rtdeci si on “ thatdo es no tre ston procedural g r o u n d s a lo n e is a n a d

ju d ic a tio n o n th e m e r its , r e g a r d le s s o f th e f o rm in w h ic h it is expres se d. ” I

d. a t 1 2 5 5 - 5 6 . T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha t , i n a n appe a l tha tc ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , the “ c r i t i c a l i nqui ry ” i s “ w he the r , a f t e rvi e w i ng the e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , any ra t i on al tri erof fa ct c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c r im e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. J ac k s on , 44 3 U . S . at31 8-19 , 99 S . C t . at27 88 -89. T he S up re m e C ou rtno t ed that i ti s the duty of

the tr i e rof

f a c t“ t o r e s ol ve c onf

l i c t s i n the t e s t i m ony , t o w e i gh the e vi de nc e , a nd t o dr a w r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s f r om ba s i c f

a c t s t o ul t i m a t e f

a c t s , ” a nd ar e vi e w i ng c our tm a y nots ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm e nta s t o w he the ri tbe l i e ve s the e v id e n c e to b e s u f

f ic ie n t to s u s ta in ac o n v ic tio n . I d. I n w e i ghi ng the s uf

f i c i e nc y of the e vi de nc e , i ti s notr e qui r e d tha tthe e vi de nc e rul e oute ve ry hypothe s i s e xc e pt th a t o f g u ilt b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. Ma r t i n v . S ta te o f A la b a ma , 730 F . 2d 721, 7 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . F l or i dal a w pr ohi bi t s a n i ndi vi dua l f r om “ c a rry [ i ng] ac onc e a l e d f i r e a rm on7

o rab o u t h is o rh e rp e r s o n .” F la . S ta t. § 7 9 0 .0 1 ( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) . A c o n c e a le d f ir e a rm is defi ned “ as any f

i re arm ca rr i ed on or abou ta per son i n such a m anner as t o con ce al the fi re arm fr om the ordi narysi gh tof another pers on . ” D o r e lu s v . S ta te , 747 S o. 2d 368, 370 ( F l a . 1999) ( quot i ng F l a . S t a t . § 790- 001( 2) ) . T he f i r e a rm ne e d notbe ab s o lu te ly in v is ib le . I

d. a t 3 7 0 - 3 7 1 . H e r e , ne c e s s a r i l y unde r l y i ng the s t a t e c our tde c i s i ons w a s ade t e rm i na t i on thatthe evi dence w as suff i ci entt o u ph ol d a conceal m entconv i ct i on , a s t andard i dent i ca l t o federa l suff

i ci encyre vi ew . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct c o u r t e rr e d in f

in d in g th is c la im p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d . H o w e v e r , th e e v id e n c e in th is c a s e , v ie w e d in alig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , d e m o n s tr a te s th a t a r a t i ona l j ur orc oul d ha ve f ound M c K i nz i e gui l ty be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubtof co n ceal i n g a fi rearm . T h e st at e co u rt s d i d n o tu n reaso n ab l y ap p l y J ac k s on . B e c aus e w e c onc l ude f

r om the r e c or d tha tM c K i nz i e ’ s unde r l y i ng due proces s c l ai m i s w i tho utm er i t , w e a ff i rm the deni al of habeas re l i ef . AF F I RME D.