FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 4, 2008 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- 11518 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo s . 0 4 - 8 0 8 5 3 - C V- DT KH

0 2 - 8 0 0 5 6 - CR - DTK J E R E M Y M . C A R T E R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 4, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a r t e r , 71 F e d. A ppx. 822 ( T abl e ) , C . A . 11 ( F l a . ) J une 13, 2003, w e a f

f i r m e d pe t i t i one r ’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orba nk r obbe ry a nd f

or pos s e s s i ng a m m uni t i on a s a f e l on. O n S e pt e m be r2, 2004, pe t i t i one rm ove d the d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o rr e lie f f r o m h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , c la im in g th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. F ol l ow i ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, the c our tde ni e d hi s m ot i on. W e gr a nt e d a cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty (“ C O A ”) o n tw o i ssu es: ( 1) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the w r ong l e ga l s t a nda r d, na m e l y , the beyond -a -r ea sonabl e- do ub tst andard, i n anal yz i ng [pet i t i on er ’ s] cl ai m thatcoun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for i ncorrec t l y a dv i si ng hi m of the po t ent i al se nt ence thathe fa ce d i f he procee ded t o tri al ; and (2) w hether the di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tfoun d that c o u n s e l w a s n o t in e f

f e c tiv e f o ra lle g e d ly a llo w in g [ h im ] to r e m a in d r e s s e d in p r is o n g a rb d u r in g tr ia l. R e ga r di ng the f

i r s ti s s ue , pe t i t i one rc ont e nds tha tc ouns e l , A l vi n E nt i n, m is a d v is e d h im r e g a r d in g th e p o te n tia l s e n te n c e th a t h e w o u ld f a c e if h e w e n t to tr i a l , c om pa r e d t o i f

he pl e d gui l ty , a nd tha ti f he ha d know n the s e nt e nc e s tha the w a s f a c i ng unde re a c h a l t e rna t i ve , he w oul d notha ve pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l . A s f orthe s e c ond i s s ue , he c ont e nds tha tE nt i n w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o br i ng hi s pr i s on ga rb t o the a tt e nt i on of

the di s tr i c tc our ti n or de rt o pr e s e rve the pr e s um pt i on of3

i n n o c e n c e a f

f o r d e d h i m. I n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) , the S upr e m e C our te s t abl i s he d a tw o- pr ong t e s tf ora dj udi c a t i ng i ne f

f e c t i ve as sistan ce o f c o u n se l claim s. F irst, th e p etit io n erm u st sh o w th at co u n se l’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt . I d. a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064. T he pr ope rm e a s ur e of an att orney’ s per form ance i s “ re as on abl enes s und erprevai l i ng profes si on al nor m s . ” I d. a t688, 104 S . C t . a t2065. U nl e s s the pe t i t i one rc a n r e butthe “ s tr ong p r e s u m p tio n th a t c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t f a lls w ith in th e w id e r a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le profes si on al as si st ance , ” he c anno tshow thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as c o n s titu tio n a lly d e f

ic ie n t. I d . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . “T h e te s t h a s n o th in g to d o w i th w h atth e b estl aw yers w o u l d h av e d o n e. N o r i s th e t estev en w h atm o st go od l aw ye rs w ou l d h ave don e. [W e a sk] on l y w hether s om e r ea sonabl e l aw ye r a t the tri al coul d h ave a ct ed, i n the ci rc um st ance s, as defe nse c ou nsel ac t ed attri al . ” W hi t e v. S i ngl e t a ry , 972 F . 2d 1218, 1220 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ; s e e a l s o W a t e r s v. T hom a s , 46 F . 3d 1506, 1514 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ pe r f e c t i on i s notthe s ta n d a r d o f

e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e ” ) . S ec on d, the pet i t i on erm ustshow thatthe defi ci entperf orm ance prej ud i ce d hi s def ense . S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at68 7, 10 4 S . C t . at20 64 . T o p rove prej ud i ce , the pe t i t i one rm us ts how tha tthe r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf or4

coun se l ’ s unp rofe ss i on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di f f e r e nt . A r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty i s a pr obabi l i ty “ s uf f i c i e ntt o unde rm i ne confi dence i n the ou t com e. ” I d. at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . B ec ause the pet i t i on er m us tm e e tboth pa r t s of the t e s t , w e ne e d nota ddr e s s the pe r f orm a nc e pr ong i f

the pe t i t i one rc a nnotm e e tthe pr e j udi c e pr ong, a nd vi c e ve r s a . H ol l a da y v. H a l e y , 209 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t S tr ic k la n d ’s tw o - p a r t te s t a ls o ap p lie s to

“ c ha l l e nge s t o gui l ty pl e a s ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . ” H i l l v. L o c k h a r t, 4 7 4 U .S . 5 2 , 5 8 , 1 0 6 S .C t. 3 6 6 , 3 7 0 , 8 8 L .E d .2 d 2 0 3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . H ill h e ld th a t to e s tab lis h p r e

ju d ic e , “th e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t th e r e is a r e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s e rr or s , he w oul d notha ve pl e a de d gui l ty a nd w o u ld h a v e in s is te d o n g o in g to tr ia l.” H ill, 4 7 4 U .S . a t 5 9 , 1 0 6 S .C t. a t 3 7 0 . W e ha ve he l d tha t“ c ouns e l ow e s a l e s s e rduty t o a c l i e ntw ho pl e a ds gui l ty tha n t o one w h o d e c id e s to g o to tr ia l, a n d in th e f o rm e rc a s e c o u n s e l n e e d o n ly p r o v id e h is cl i entw i th an u nd er st andi ng of the l aw i n rel at i on t o the fa ct s, so thatthe ac cuse d m ay m ak e a n in fo rm ed an d co n sc io u s c h o ice b etw ee n ac ce p ti n g th e p ro se cu ti o n ’s offe r a nd go i ng t o tri al . ” W offord v. W ai nw ri gh t , 74 8 F . 2d 15 05 , 15 08 (11th C i r. 19 84 ). “ T o i m partsuch an un ders t andi ng t o the ac cuse d, coun se l m ust , af t er m a ki ng a n i nde pe nde nte xa m i na t i on of the f a c t s , c i r c um s t a nc e s , pl e a di ngs a nd5

la w s in v o lv e d , o f

f e rh is in f o r m e d o p in io n a s to th e b e s t c o u r s e to b e f o llo w e d in p r o te c tin g th e in te r e s ts o f h is c lie n t.” I d . A s pe t i t i one rc orr e c t l y not e s , the di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e d hi s bur de n, s t a t i ng thathe di d n otm ee thi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng “ beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt ” that hi s c ouns e l ’ s i nc orr e c ta dvi c e r e s ul t e d i n hi s r e j e c t i on of

the pl e a of

f e r , w he n the prop erst andard i s a“ re as on abl e probabi l i ty” that , bu tfor c ou nsel ’ s unp rofe ss i on al e rr or s , the r e s ul tof

the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . S e e S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064. N e ve r the l e s s , E nt i n’ s pe r f or m a nc e i n a dvi s i ng pet i t i on erw as no tdefi ci ent , as he adm i tt ed thatE nt i n adv i se d h i m thathe w as fa ci ng a thi rt ee n-ye arpri son t erm i f c on vi ct ed on a pl eaof gu i l ty m ade und era pl e a a gr e e m e nt , a nd a l e tt e rtha tE nt i n s e ntt o hi m a dvi s e d hi m tha the w a s f a c i ng tw enty- fi ve t o thi rty y ea rs ’ i m pri sonm enti f c on vi ct ed fol l ow i ng a gui l ty ver di ctat tri al . T hu s, because pet i t i on erdi d n otshow thatE nt i n’ s per form ance w as c ons t i tut i ona l l y de f

i c i e ntore ve n unr e a s onabl e , w e ne e d nota ddr e s s the s e c ond pr ong of the S tr i c kl a nd t e s t ; he nc e , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e rr ori n m i s s t a t i ng pet i t i on er ’ s burden u nd erthatpron g w as harm l es s. S ee H ol l aday , 20 9 F . 3d at 1 2 4 8 . W e tu rn n o w t o th e seco n d i ssu e th e C O A p resen t s. T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thata def endant ’ s app ea ra nce i n p ri son att i re s e r io u s ly c o m p r o m is e s th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to th e p r e s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e b a s ic6

t o the a dve r s a ry s y s t e m . E s t e l l e v. W i l l i a m s , 425 U . S . 501, 504, 96 S . C t . 1691, 1 6 9 3 , 4 8 L .E d .2 d 1 2 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n o c c u r s w h e n a d e f e n d a n t is c om pe l l e d, thr ough gove rnm e nta c torom i s s i on, t o appe a rbe f or e the j ury i n pr i s on ga rb. I d. a t512- 13, 96 S . C t . a t1696- 97. C a r t e rdoe s nota l l e ge tha the s uf f e r e d a vi ol a t i on of

hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s ; r a the r , he a s s e r t s tha tc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o hi s appe a r a nc e dur i ng tr i a l i n pr i s on a tt i r e a nd s ha c kl e s . T he g o v e rn m e n t h a s c o n c e d e d th a t it, a s w e ll a s th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e , e rr o n e o u s ly c onf us e d C a r t e r ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e w i th a due pr oc e s s c l a i m of

s t a t e c om pul s i on. R e c ogni z i ng tha tC a r t e r ’ s c l a i m i s i n f a c tone o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e , w e n e e d o n ly e v a lu a te C a r te r ’s c la im u n d e rS tr ic k la n d . A c c o r d in g ly , to p r e v a il o n h is c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e w ith r e s p e c t to h is a tto rn e y ’s f

a ilu r e to o b

je c t to h im r e m a in in g d r e s s e d in p r is o n a ttir e d u r in g tr ia l, C a r t e rm us ts how both tha tc ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o obj e c tw a s be y ond the “ w i de r a nge of re as on abl e profes si on al as si st ance ” a nd thatthere i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty that b u t f o rth is d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e , th e r e s u lt o f

h is tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 , 2 0 6 8 . A s s um i ng, w i thoutde c i di ng, tha tc ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o a rr a nge f

orthe defe nd antt o app ea r i n ci vi l i an cl othi ng ra ther than i n p ri son att i re du ri ng hi s tri al w a s b e y o n d th e r a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le a tto rn e y c o n d u c t, C a r te rn o n e th e le s s f a ils to7

dem on stra t e thathe w as prej ud i ce d b y c ou nsel ’ s per form ance . T he evi dence a g a in s t C a r te ro n b o th c o u n ts w a s s o s tr o n g th a t th e r e is n o t ar e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty tha ta j ury w oul d ha ve f ound hi m notgui l ty butf orthe f a c ttha the appe a r e d a ttr i a l i n pr i s on a tt i r e . M or e ove r , the tr i a l j udge pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d the j u ry o n th e p resu m p t i o n o f i n n o cen ce th atw as t o b e acco rd ed t o C art er. B ecau se C a r t e rha s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pr e

j udi c e a s a r e s ul tof

appe a r i ng a ttr i a l i n pr i s on ga rb, he i s unabl e t o m e e thi s bur de n unde rS tr i c kl a nd. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is a c c o r d in g ly AF F I R ME D.