[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 06 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 15 28 -ASG THARAS E. MOORE,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st13 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, FAY, an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Tha ras Mo or e, a Fl or id a st at e p ris on er, ap pe al s t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f Case: 11-14062 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 1 of 5hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Inhi s

pe ti ti on , Mo or e al le ge d t ha t t he st at e tr ia l co urt v io la te d h is fed eral du e p ro ces s rig ht s wh enitfai le d t o a dv is e h im of h is rig htto ap pe al hi s s en te nc e athi s M ay 8, 20 01 , sen te nc in g h eari ng . He furt he r al le ge d t ha t h e so ug hta be la te d app eal in Nov em be r 20 09 , aft er l earn in g o f hi s ri gh t t o app eal , bu t t he Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt of App eal su m

m ari ly den ie d h is reque st . Se e Mo or e v. Sta te , 23 So .3d11 93 (Fl a. 3dDCA 20 10 ) (Tab le ). The Dis tri ctCo urt d en ie d M oo re’s p et it io n a fte r be cau se th e st at e co urt’s se nt en ci ng jud gm en ts st at edth atth e se nt en ci ng co urt h adadvi se d M oo re o f hi s rig htto ap pe al . In d oi ng so , th e Dis tri ctCo urt o ve rru le d M oo re’s o bjec ti on s t ha t: (1 ) th e st at em en ts on th e se nt en ci ng jud gm en ts were b oi le rp la te lan gu ag e th atth e st at e co urts pl acedon all jud gm en ts , andwere i ns uf fic ie ntto de te rm in e whe th er h e ha d, i n fa ct , bee n a dv is edof h is rig htto ap pe al ; an d (2 ) he ha d “ vi go ro us ly and rel en tl es sl y ” so ug htto ob ta in hi s p le a co ll oquy andsen te nc in g h eari ng tra ns cri pt s, whi chwou ldha ve sh own th atth e st at e tr ia l co urt d idno t ad vi se hi m of h is rig htto ap pe al , bu t re cei ve d n o h el p i n d oi ng so fro m th e cl erkof c ou rts off

ic e an d t he co urt re po rti ng ag en cy . W e th engra nt eda cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on on e is su e: whet he r, pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( f), th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e o rd eredth e St at e to 2 Case: 11-14062 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 2 of 5supp le m en t t he reco rdwith t ran sc rip ts fro m Mo or e’s pl ea co ll oquy andsen te nc in g he ari ng s, b ot h o f whi ch were n otin cl ud edin th e rec or d b efo re the Dis tri ctCo urt. W e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w de no vo , andfin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r. Ferg us on v. Cu ll iv er , 52 7 F .3d11 44 , 11 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A fede ral co urt m ay no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f on a cl ai m th atwas p rev io us ly adjud ic at edonth e m eri ts in st at e co urt, u nl es s t he ad

jud ic at io n: (1) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry to , orin vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law; or (2 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edup on anun reas 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 t he st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Mor eo ve r, st at e co urt fa ctua l fi nd in gs are p res um edco rrec t, an d t he pe ti ti on er b ears th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th is pre su m pt io n b y cle ar an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce. Id . § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). The p et it io ne r be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng hi s ri gh t t o h ab eas rel ie f an d p ro vi ng all of t he fact s n eces sa ry to de m on st rat e a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Romi ne v. Head , 25 3 F .3d13 49 , 13 57 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . If the ap pl ic an t ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ad du cedin th e st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs to supp ort t he st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f a fac tu al is su e, th e ap pl ic an t, i f ab le , m

us t p ro du ce the pa rt o f th e rec or d p ert in en t t o t he de te rm in at io n o f th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he st at e co urt’s fa ctua l

3 Case: 11-14062 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 3 of 5de te rm in at io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (f). If t he ap pl ic an t i s u nabl e to pro du ce the

ne ces sa ry pa rt o f th e rec or d, t he Sta te m us t p ro du ce i t atth e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. Id . Sho ul d t he Sta te be un ab le to pro du ce the reco rd , th e d is tri ctco urt s ha ll de te rm in e u nd er the ex is ti ng fact s an d c irc um st an ces whatweig htth e st at e co urt’s factua l d et erm in at io ns sh ou ldbe gi ve n. Id . In Ferg us on , we add res se d ape ti ti on er’s cl ai m th athe di d n otva li dl y

waiv e hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el . 52 7 F .3dat 1 14 5- 49 . Alth ou gh th e Dis tri ctCo urt o rd eredth e St at e to pro du ce p orti on s o f th e st at e-co urt re co rdrel ev an t t o thi s i ss ue , th e st at e fai le d t o p ro vi de an y

tra ns cri pt s o f th e tr ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id . at 1 14 7. Th e St at e, ho wev er, d idpro du ce a c op y of the Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal ’s dec is io n, wh ic h affi rm edth e d en ia l o f th e p et it io ne r’s st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n an d 1 ex te ns iv el y

refe rredto th e st at e tr ia l co urt t ran sc rip ts . Id . W e h el d t ha t t he ab se nc e o f th e tr ia l re co rdpre cl ud edth e Dis tri ctCo urt fr om co nduc ti ng a m ean in gf ul rev ie w of t he st at e co urt d eci si on , andth ata fed eral habe as co urt m us t ex am in e th e st at e tr ia l re co rdrathe r th ansi m pl y rel y up on a st at e co urt’s fi nd in gs as to whatth e tr ia l re co rdco nt ai ns . Id . at 1 14 8- 49 . Accor di ng ly, we rem an de d fo r reco ns id erat io n o f th e p et it io ne r’s cl ai m in li gh t o f th e tr ia l t ran sc rip ts . Id . at 1 14 9 The Dis tri ctCo urt co ul d n otm ean in gf ul ly revi ew Mo or e’s cl ai m in th e SeeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. 1 4 Case: 11-14062 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 4 of 5ab se nc e o f th e p le a co ll oquy andsen te nc in g h eari ng tra ns cri pt s. Acco rd in gl y , we

va cat e th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er d en y in g M oo re’s h ab eas pe ti ti on , andrem an d wit h d ire ct io ns th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt o rd er the Sta te to pro du ce the pl ea co ll oquy an d s en te nc in g h eari ng tra ns cri pt s p rio r to co ns id eri ng th e m eri t’s o f Mo or e’s cl ai m . VACATED AN D REMANDED.

5

Case: 11-14062 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 5 of 5