FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 14, 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- 14108 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -006 29 -C V -T W T -1 A B D U L L A H M . R A S H E E D , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s H U G H S M I T H , W a r d e n , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 14, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A bd ul l ah M . R as heed, a p ro se G eorgi a pri soner c on vi ct ed of armed
r obbe ry , a ggr a va t e d a s s a ul t , a n d fal se i m pr i s onm e nta nd s e r vi ng a 25- y e a rt e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 2 8 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i onWe discern no error in the district court’s c onclusion that the state cour ts’ analysis of 1 Rasheed’ s ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of -appe ll at e- counsel claims was not contrar y to, nor an unre a sonab le app lic atio n o f, c le arly e sta bli sh e d f e deral la w. To thee xtent Ra sh e e d raise s c laims that he did not asser

t i nthe district court -- including theasser tion that his trial counse l was ineffe ctive for

failingto quash the original indi ctment, and that his appellate counsel wa s ineffe ctive for f ailing to ra i s e an ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laim ag ainst his trial counsel for not c halleng ing the indictment -- wewill not consider them for thefirst time here . 2 fo r w ri t o f

ha be a s c orpus . I n hi s pe t i t i on, R a s he e d a s s e r t e d, a m ong othe rthi ng s, th e f o llo w in g c la im s : ( 1 ) th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t h is
c onvi ct i o n fora r m e d r obbe ry ; a nd ( 2) tha the r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of
c o u n s e l b a s e d o n t r i a l c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to c h a lle n g e th e in d ic tm e n t, to in v e s tig a te the ba c kgr ounds of

a s t a t e w i tne ss an d the vi c t i m s , a nd t o m ove f ora m i s tr i a l or re new R as heed’ s m ot i on for a se v erance. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed habeas r el i ef . 1 A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntorde ni a l of a § 2254 pe t i t i on d e n o v o, a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s u n d erl y i ng f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f

orc l e a re rr or . S e e S i m s v. S in g letar y , 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). In re v iew in g a s tate co u rt’s deci si on denyi ng habeas re l i ef , a f eder al courti s pro h ib it ed fr om grant i ng habeas
r e lie f u n l ess th e st at e d eci si o n w as (1 ) “ co n trary t o , o r i n v o l v ed an u n reas o n a b le appl i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l law , a s det erm i ned b y the U ni t ed S t at es S u p r e m e C o u rt,” o r( 2 ) “b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le d e te r m 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 d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . §3

2254( d) . M or e ove r , f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs of

s t a t e c ourt s are p re s um e d t o be c orr e c t , a nd
a ha be a s pe t i t i one rc a n r e butthe m onl y b y cl ear an d c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . S e e 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . A st at e c o u rt d eci si on i s “ cont ra ry t o” cl earl 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 a rul e tha tc ontr a di c t s the g o v ern i n g 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 entfro m thatre ac hed i n a S up re m e C ou rt c a s e .” P u tm a n v . H e a d , 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 a b le appl i ca t i on ” of c l ea rl y e st abl i shed fe d eral l aw m ay occur i f the st at e c ou rt “id e n tif i e s t h 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 a b ly
ap p lie s th a t ru le to th e f a c ts o f th e p e titio n e r ’s c a s e .” I d . “A n u n r e a s o n a b le
ap p lic a tio n m a y a ls o o c c u rif a s ta te c o u r t u n r e a s o n a b ly e x te n d s , o ru n r e a s o n a b ly decl i nes t o ex te nd , a l egal pri nci pl e f rom S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw t o a new c ont e xt . ” I d. F ir s t, R a s h e e d a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e w a s in a d e q u a te e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is
conv i ct i on for a rm ed robb er y. T h e S u p re m e C ou rthas hel d, i n the cont extof a
s ta te p r is o n e r ’s h a b e a s c h a lle n g e to th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is
c onvi c t i on, tha tt h e “ cri 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 vi de nc e i n the l i g h t m os tf

a vor a bl e t o the pr os e c ut i on, a ny r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound4

the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e b e y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” J a c ks on v. V i rgi ni a, 44 3 U . S . 30 7, 31 8-19 (197 9) (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi na l), o verrul ed on other gr ounds by S c hl up v. D e l o, 51 3 U . S . 2 9 8 ( 1995) . T he C our tnot e d tha ti ti s the duty of t h e t ri er o f

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 ona b l e i n fe 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
s tr e s s e d t h a t a r e v ie w in g c o u r t m a y n o t s u b s titu te its ju d g m e n t a s to w h e th e rit be l i e ve s the e vi de nc e t o be su ffi c i e ntt o s us t a i n a c onvi c t i on. 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 , the ev i d e nc e ne e d notrul e oute ve ry hy pothe s i s e xc e pt tha tof gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . M a r t i n v. A l aba m a , 730 F . 2d 721, 724 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . I n G e o r g ia , th e e l e m e n t s o f a r m e d r o b b e ry a r e ( 1 ) in te n t to c o m m it a th e f t; (2) t a ki ng pr op e r ty of

a no the rf

r om a pe r s on orthe i mm e di a t e pr e s e nc e of a no t her;
a nd ( 3) the us e o f an o ffens i ve w e apon t o a c c om pl i s h the t a ki ng. O . C . G . A . § 16- 8- 41 . A tR as heed’ s tri al , the st at e pre se nt ed t es t i m on y thatco-defe nd antV et ena G arr t oo k p roperty f

rom the i m m ed iate pres ence of the vi ct i m s by the use of an offe nsi ve w eapo n, w i thi n the m ea ni ng of § 1 6-8-41 . T here w as al so t es t i m on y that G arr a ct ed w i th R as heed’ s e ncou ra gem entand w ental on g w i th th e r ob bery b ecau se sh e (G arr) feared th atR ash eed w o u l d k i l l o r h u rth er i f sh e d i d n o tco m p l y.5

M oreover, R as heed t es t i fi ed th athe w as pres entdu ri ng the robb ery, and adm i tt ed in a s ta te m e n t th a t h e s h a r e d in th e p r o c e e d s o f th e c r im e . T he G eorgi a C ou rtof A p p ea l s’ anal ys i s of the suff i ci ency of the evi dence
w as no tcont ra ry t o n or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of cl ea rl y estab l i shed fe dera l l a w . T he s t a t e c ourts pe c i f i c a l l y c i t e d t o the c ontr ol l i n g S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt o n s u ch a cl ai m an d ap p l i ed th e st an d ard i n reach i n g i t s d eci si o n . T h e ev i d e n c e in t hi s c a s e , vi e w e d i n the l i gh t mos t f a vo r a bl e t o the j ury ’ s ve r di c t , de mons tr a t es t hat
a r a t i ona l j ur orc oul d ha ve fo u n d R a s he e d gui l ty be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubtof
a r m e d r obb ery , unde rG e or gi a l a w . A c c or di ngl y , the s t a t e c our t s ’ a na l y s i s w a s not c ontr a ry t o, ora n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of , the pr i nc i pl e s of

J a c ks on. T urni ng t o R as h ee d’ s c l ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , w e r evi ew de no vo a det erm i nat i on thata habeas cl ai m w as p ro ce du ra l l y def aul t ed. B row nl ee v. H a l e y , 306 F . 3d 1043 , 1 0 5 8 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . W e a l s o r e vi e w m i xe d que s t i ons of l a w a nd f

a c t , i nc l udi ng i ne f

f e c t i ve-as s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m s , de novo. I d. T he cl ea rl y e st abl i shed l aw on i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l cl ai m s is se t f o r th i n S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U . S. 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , i n w h i c h th e Su p r e me C ou rtes t abl i shed a tw o-pron g t es tfor a dj ud i ca t i ng such cl ai m s. F i rs t , a pet i t i on er m ustshow that cou nsel ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent . Id. at68 7. T he prop er m e a s u r e o f

p e r f o r m a n c e is “r e a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e rp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m s .”6

Id. at68 8. C ou nsel i s “ stron g ly pres um ed” t o h ave r endered adequat e a ss i st ance an d to h av e e x er cise d re as o n ab le p ro fe ss io n al ju d g m en t. I d . a t 6 9 0 . C o u n se l’ s pe r f or m a nc e i s de f

i c i en t i f couns e l m a de e rr or s s o e gr e gi ous tha the w a s not f u n c tio n in g a s th e c o u n s e l g u a r a n te e d u n d e rth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. I d . a t 6 8 7 . S e c ond , a m ova ntm us ts how tha tthe de f i c i e ntpe r f

or m a nc e pr e

j udi c e d the d e f e n s e . I d . T o p r o v e p r e ju d ic e , a m o v 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 a b le p ro b ab il ity th at th e o u tco m e w o u ld h av e b e e n d iffe re n t b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s un profes si on al errors . Id. at69 4. “ It is no tenou gh for the defendantt o sho w that the errors had som e c on ce i vabl e e ff ec ton the ou t com e o f th e p roce edi ng . ” I d. at 6 9 3 . H ere, the G eorgi a C ou rtof A pp ea l s’ anal ys i s of R as heed’ s i neff ec t i vea s s is ta n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c la i m b a s e d o n tr ia l c o u n s e l’s a lle g e d f a ilu r e to in v e s tig a te
w as nei ther c on tra ry t o, no r a n u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, the w el l -e st abl i shed la w o f S tr ic k la n d . T h e s ta te c o u r t i d e n t i f i e d th e c o rr e c t s ta n d a r d a n d ap p lie d it to th e f a c tu a l f in d in g s , w h ic h w e r e n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s a n d , in d e e d , w e r e f u l ly
su p p o rted b y th e tes ti m o n y p re se n ted at th e e v id en ti ar y h ea rin g o n R as h ee d ’s
m ot i on fo r a new tri al . T he G eorgi a c ou rtfoun d thatR as heed’ s tri al coun se l had
m a de a t a c t i c a l de c i s i on c onc e rni ng the s c ope of hi s i nv est i g at i o n i nt o w he the rthe
s c e ne of the a r m e d r obbe ry - - a f ood m a r t- - w a s , i n a c tua l i ty , a drug de a l i ngGiven Ra sh e e d’ s f ailureto s atis fy

thefirs t pron g , th estatec ourt wa s n ot re quire d to 2 consider thesecond prong . Se eH o ll a d ay v . H aley , 2 0 9 F . 3 d

1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 8 ( 1 1 th

Cir . 2 0 0 0 ) . We observe , however, that the c ourt conclude d that Rasheed’ s ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laim based on trial counsel’s inve stigation also failed on the prejudice prong . 7 e s tab lis h m e n t. C o u n s e l te s tif ie d th a t s u c h a th e o ry w a s i n c o n s is te n t w ith R a s he e d’ s the ory of

de f e ns e , w hi c h w a s tha tR a s he e d ha d no co nne c t i on t o the robb ery other than m er el y bei ng pres ent . T hu s, th e G eorgi a c ou rtconcl ud ed R a s he e d ha d not s a t i s f i e d hi s bur de n on the pe r f or m a nc e pr on g o f t h e S tr i c kl a nd i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance t es t . T hi s c on cl usi on w as n otcont ra ry t o, or an 2
unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of , S tr i c kl a nd. L i kew i se , the deni al of R as heed ’s cl ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l f or f a i l u r e t o mo v e f

o r a mi s tr i a l o r r e n e w a mo t i o n f o r a s e v e r a n c e w a s not c ontr a ry t o , o r an u nr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of , S tr i c kl a nd. D ur i ng the he a r i ng on R as heed’ s m ot i on for an ew tri al , the tri al courtspec i fi ca l l y s t at ed thathad cou nsel
m o v e d f o ra m is tr ia l, it w o u ld n o t h a v e g r a n te d th e m o t i o n . M o r e o v e r , th e G e o r g ia C our tof A ppe a l s not e d tha ti f

s uc h a m ot i on ha d be e n f i l e d, a nd de ni e d , s uc h a rul i ng w ou l d n ot h av e b een d i sturbed o n app ea l . T hu s, tri al coun se l ’ s per form ance w a s notde f

i c i e ntunde rS tr i c kl a nd -
- the f i l i ng of a m i s tr i a l m o t i o n , o r a m ot i on f or s e v e r a n c e , w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u tile a n d th u s , c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n n o t to p u r s u e th isWith respe ct to Rasheed’ s ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laim for failure to file a renew ed 3 motion fo r a severa nc e , th eGe org ia

Court of Appe als co nc lude d that Rash e e d ha d waive d this c laim by not raisingit on dir ec t appeal. The e x istence of an ade quate a

nd independent state ground for denial of the claim proce durally bars this Court’s review. See Upshaw v. Singletar y , 70 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir. 1995). Moreover, Rashee d has not shown ca use for the def ault and ac tual prejudice , nor has heestablished a f undamental misca

rriag e of justice suf

ficient to excuse the de fault. 8 course of ac t i on w as no tdefi ci entun der S tri ckl and. F or the sa m e re as o n s, R as heed h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w p r e

j u d i c e a s t o th i s c l a i m. 3 A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ou rt d i d n o te rri n de ny i ng the pe t i t i on f orw r i tof h a b e a s c o rp u s . AF F I RME D.