FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 87 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cv -2 30 34 -FAM VRAIN SCOTT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA, W al te r A. McNei l, Se cret ary, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Thi s i s the sec on d t im e we h av e rev ie wedth e d en ia l o f a p et it io n fo r a wri tof

habe as co rp us so ug htby Vrai n S co tt . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Sc ot t p et it io ne d fo r rel ie f on th e g ro un d t ha t a F lo rid a co ur t re se nt en cedhi m ba se d o n afin di ng of f

act
no t m ad e b y

th e jury at tr ia l, i n v io la ti on of Ap pr en di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 34 8 (2 00 0) . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S co tt ’s pet it io n a s s uc ces si ve an d u nt im el y , bu t we v acat edth atde ci si on an d re m an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . Sco ttv. Fl a. Dep ’t of Co rr, No. 0 8- 10 47 1 (1 1t h C ir. J an . 13 , 20 09 ). On remand , th e d is tri ctco ur t ru le d t ha t t he de ci si on of t he st at e co ur t was no t co nt rary to o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law. We affirm . Sco ttarg ue s t ha t the st at e co ur t v io la te d h is rig htto a tr ia l b y jury by ad jud ic at in g h im

gu il ty of ro bb ery wit h aweap on wit ho uta sp eci fic fin di ng to th at effe ctby a j ury , bu t t hi s ar gu m en t fa il s. Un de r th e Fl or id a st atut e, a d efen da ntis gu il ty of ro bb ery in th e fi rs t d eg ree wh et he r he “ carr ie d afir earm or o th er d ead ly weap on ,” Fl a. St at . § 8 13 .12 (2 )(a) , or “ carr ie d aweap on ,” id . § 8 13 .12 (2 )(b ). The jury fou ndSco ttgu il ty of “ arm edrob be ry ,” bu t t he jury di d n otm ak e a s pe ci al fin di ng th athe carr ie d afir earm . After c ol la te ral rev ie w, Sco ttwas re se nt en cedas gu il ty of ro bb ery wit h aweap on in st eadof r ob be ry wit h afir earm . See Ma sh bu rn v. St at e, 74 5 S o. 2 d 4 53 , 45 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 99 ). W e wil l n otrev ie w ho w th e st at e co ur ts reco nc il es th e ro bb ery st atut e an d ju ry ve rd ic ts . See Ma rs ha ll v. Sec., Fl a. Dep ’t of Co rr., 61 0 F .3d57 6, 5 83 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ ‘[F] ed eral co ur ts do 2no t s itto rev is ita st at e su pr em e co ur t’s jud gm en t as to whet he r th e tr ia l co ur t

co m pl ie d wi th st at e la w.’ ” (quo ti ng Bo le nd er v . Sin gl et ary, 16 F.3d15 47 , 15 70 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) ). The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de ni edSco tthabe as rel ie f be cau se th e st at e co ur t
reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atSco tt ’s sen te nc e d idno t v io la te App ren di . The Supr em e Co ur t h el d i n Ap pr en di th at“ [o ]the r th an th e fac t o f a p rio r co nv ic ti on , an y factth atin crea se s t he pe na lt y fora cri m e b ey on d t he pre sc rib edst atut ory m ax im um m us t b e subm it te d t o ajury, an d p ro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” 53 0 U.S. at49 0, 1 20 S. Ct. at23 62 –6 3. Th e st at e co ur t re as on ab ly reli edon th e ve rd ic t o f th e jury tha t Sc ot t co m m it te d a rm edrob be ry

to ad jud ic at e Sco ttgu il ty of
ro bb ery wit h aweap on . W e AFFIRM th e d en ia l o f Sco tt ’s pet it io n.

3