FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S
EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Oct. 23, 2009
THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 0 7- 13 14 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 0 4- 00 14 9- CV-J -3 2HTS

JEROM E BURGESS,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

W ALTER A. MCNEIL, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA,

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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 3, 2 00 9)

Befo re EDMONDSON, BIRC H and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Je ro m e Bu rg es s app eal s th e de ni al of hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on fo r a writ

of h a b e a s co rp us

. W e co ns id er th e Pet it io ne r’s arg um en ts th at hi s fed eralco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s to du e pr oc es s of la w an d th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l were

vi ol at ed whe n he was tri ed

, co nv ic te d, an d se nt en ced to li fe in pr is on fo r ro bb ery wit h

a weap on , in vi ol at io n of Fl or id a la w. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e

pe ti ti on

.

I. BACKG ROUND

Je ro m e Bu rg es s, th e P e t i t i on er, was ch arg ed in Fl or id a by in fo rm at io n wit h

ro bb ery wit h a weap on , in vi ol at io n of Fl a. St at

. § 81 2.1 3( 1) & (2 )(b ). (R.1 -3 6 at 3.)

The in fo rm at io n id en ti fie d th e weap on as a fir earm

. Id

. The Fl or id a ro bb ery st at ut e

de fin es th ree c rimes, two of wh ic h a re fi rs t-d eg ree f el on ie s. Th e st at ut e p ro vi de s:

(1 ) “ Ro bb ery” m ean s th e ta ki ng of m on ey or ot he r pr op ert y whi ch m ay be th e su bjec t of la rcen y fro m th e pe rs on or cu st od y of an ot he r, wit h in te n t to ei th er pe rm an en tl y or te m po rari ly de pr iv e th e pe rs on or th e

own er of th e m on ey or ot he r pr op ert y , whe n in th e co ur se of th e ta ki ng th ere i s t he us e o f fo rce, v io le nc e, as sa ul t, o r pu tt in g i n fe ar.

(2 )(a) If in th e co ur se of c om m it ti ng th e ro bb ery th e o ffen de r car rie d a fir earm or ot he r de ad ly weap on , th en th e ro bb ery is a fel on y of th e fir st de gr ee , p u n i sh ab le by i m pr is on m en t fo r a te rm of y ears no t ex ceed in g li fe im pr is on m en t or as pr ov id ed in s. 77 5.0 82

, s. 77 5.0 83

, or s. 77 5.0 84

.
(b ) If in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng th e ro b b e r y t h e of fen de r carr ie d a weap on , th en th e ro bb ery is a fel on y of th e f i r s t d eg ree, pu ni sh ab le as pr ov id ed in s. 7 75 .08 2, s . 77 5.0 83 , or s . 77 5.0 84

.
(c) If in th e co ur se of c o mm i t t i ng th e ro bb ery th e of fen de r carr ie d no fir earm , de ad ly weap on , or ot he r weap on , th en th e ro bb ery is a f e lo ny of th e se co nd de gr ee, pu ni sh ab le as pr ov id ed in s. 77 5.0 82

, s. 77 5.0 83

, or s. 7 75 .08 4.

2F l a. St at . § 81 2.1 3. Bu rg es s was ch arg ed wit h ro bb ery wit h a weap on , i n vi ol at i o n

of se ct io n 81 2.1 3( 2) (b ). The in fo rm at io n al l e g e d

, h o w e ve r, th at th e weap on was a

fir earm ; ro bb ery wit h a fir earm vi ol at es sec ti on 81 2.1 3( 2) (a).

At tri al

, th e St at e pu t on ev id e n c e t ha t Bu rg es s ha d pr ov id ed two ot he r m en

wit h gu ns an d in st ru ct ed th em ho w to ro b a pa rti cu la r m ot el

. Bu rg es s dr ov e th e m en

to th e m ot el

, th e two m en en te red th e m o t e l

, a n d t he y us ed th es e gu ns to ro b th e

own er. Bu rg es s h im se lf d id no t en te r th e m ot el . He dro ve th e g et away ve hi cl e.

The tri al co ur t i ns tru ct ed th e jury:

If y ou fin d th at th e de fen da nt carr ie d a fir earm in t h e c o mm i ss io n

–

e x c u s e m e – in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng th e ro bb ery, y ou sh ou ld f i n d hi m gu il ty of ro bb ery wit h a weap on

.

If y ou fin d th at th e de fen da nt carr ie d no fir earm or weap on in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng th e ro bb ery, bu t di d co m m it th e ro bb ery, y ou sh ou ld fin d hi m gu il ty onl y

of r ob be ry

.

A “ fir earm ” is le ga ll y de fin ed as a weap on whi ch wil l or is de si gn ed to

ex pe l a p ro

jecti le by the act io n o f an ex pl os iv e.

(R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 2, App

. A-1 at 48 1.) The re was no ob jecti on to th es e in st ru ct io ns

.

The jury fo un d Bu rg es s “ Gui l t y a s c h a rg ed of Pri nc ip al to Ro bb ery wit h a

weap on .” (R.1 -1 1, Ex . Fol de r 1, Ap p. A at 15 7.) Accor di ng to th e st at ut e, ro bb ery

wit h a weap on in vi ol at io n of se ct io n 2( b) is a fir st de gr ee fel on y , pu ni sh ab le by no t

m or e th an 30 y ears im

pr is on m en t. Fl a. St at

. § 81 2.1 3( 2) (b ); Fl a. St at § 77 5.0 82

. Bu t,

3Bu rg es s was se nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t, a pe rm is si bl e se nt en ce fo r ro bb ery wit h

a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of se ct io n 2( a). At se nt en ci ng , Bu rg es s’ la wy er ob jecte d to th e

li fe se nt en ce, st at in g th at it w a s i n c o r r ect un de r Fl or id a la w an d th at th e m ax im um

st at ut or y pe na lt y was 3 0 years i n p ris on . (R.1- 11 , Ex. Fo ld er 1 , App . A at 2 32 .)

II . PROCEDURAL HIS TORY

Bu rg es s ap pe al ed hi s c o n v i c t i on an d se nt en ce in th e st at e co ur ts arg ui ng , in

ad di ti on to ot he r th in gs no t rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, (a) th at hi s se nt en ce ex ceed ed th e

st at ut or y m ax im

um se nt en ce fo r th e of

fen se of co nv ic ti on an d th eref or e was in co rrec t

un de r st at e la w, an d (b) th at it vi ol at ed th e ru le se t fo rth in App re nd i v. Ne w Jers ey ,

th at “ [o ]the r th an th e fact of a pr io r co nv ic ti on , an y fact th at in crea se s th e pe na lt y fo r

a cri m e be y on d th e pr es cri be d st at ut or y m ax im um m us t be su bm it te d to a jury, an d

pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” 5 3 0 U.S. 46 6, 49 0, 12 0 S. Ct

. 23 48

, 23 62 -6 3

(2 00 0)

. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 3, App

. B.) Bu rg es s arg ue d th at th e jury ha d no t fo un d

th at he carr ie d a fir earm in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng th e ro bb ery. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er

3, App

. B at 13 .) The St at e res po nd ed th at Bu rg e s s h a d w a i ve d th e App re nd i

arg um en t by fai li ng to m ak e it at tri al an d se nt en ci ng bu t ack n o w le dg ed th at th e

st at ut or y m ax im um sen te nc e fo r ro bb ery wit h a weap on in vi ol at io n o f se ct io n 2 (b )

was 30 y ears im

pr is on m en t. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld e r 3, App

. C at 4- 5.) The co ur t of

4ap pe al affi rm ed Bu rg es s’ co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce in a pe r cu ria m op in io n th at di d no t

pr ov id e rea so ni ng for th e d eci si on . (R.1- 11 , Ex. Fo ld er 3 , App . D.)

Bu rg es s th en fil ed a Mo ti on To Co rrec t Ill eg al Sen te nc e in th e ci rcu it co ur t.

In May 20 03

, th e ci rcu it co ur t is su ed it s or de r, de t e r mi ni ng th at th e m ot io n was

wit ho ut m eri t an d st at in g th at Bu rg es s “ was co nv ic te d of a fel on y , pu ni sh ab le by li fe.

The Defen da nt was se nt en c e d

, a s a pr is on rel eas ee reo ffen de r, to li fe, ba se d on hi s

pr io r reco rd

, th e da te of hi s rel eas e fro m in carc erat io n, an d th e fact s of th is cas e. The

se nt en ce was la wfu l.” (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 3, App

. G.). Bu rg es s ap pe a l e d

, an d th e

St at e res po nd ed

. In it s res po ns e, th e St at e co nc ed ed th at B u r ge ss ’ co nv ic ti on fo r

ro bb ery wit h a weap on as a pr is on rel eas ee reo ffen de r sh ou ld on ly su bjec t hi m to 30

y ears im pr is on m en t bu t argu ed th at th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e pr ev en te d th e co ur t

fro m pro vi di ng rel ie f. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 4, App

. K at 2- 3.) The Sta te de fin ed th e

la w of t h e cas e do ct rin e as “ req ui r[i ng ] th at qu es ti on s of la w act ua ll y de ci de d on

ap pe al m us t go ve rn th e cas e in th e s a m e co ur t an d th e tri al co ur t, th ro ug h al l

s u b s e q u e n t st ag es of th e pr oc eed in gs .” ( Id

. ) The co ur t of ap pe al affi rm ed wit ho ut

op in io n. (R .1-1 1, Ex . Fol de r 4, Ap p. N.)

Bu rg es s th en so ug ht po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in Fl or id a co ur ts

. (R.1 -1 1

, Ex.

Fo ld er 4, App

. Q.) He arg ue d ei gh t gr o u n ds fo r rel ie f, in cl ud in g in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l fo r fai li ng to m ov e to di sm is s th e in fo rm at io n as du pl ic it ou s in

5th at it ch arg ed m or e th an on e cri m e in a si ng le co un t, fai li ng to mov e fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al on th e gr ou nd th at th e St at e ha d fai le d to pr ov e th at th e fir earm s us ed in

th e cri m e were weap on s un de r th e st at ut or y d e fin it io n of weap on , an d fai li ng to

ob ject t o th e jury in st ru ct io ns gi ve n b y th e co ur t o n t he de fin it io n o f ro bb ery wit h a

weap on an d th e de fin it io n of a fir earm as a weap on

. ( Id

. at 2- 5, 6- 8, 8- 11 .) Bu rg es s’

fir st m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f di d no t ci te App re nd i or pr es en t an y arg um en t

th at hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s ha d be en vi ol at ed

. The ci rcu it co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n,

fin di ng th e th ree in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s li st ed ab ov e m eri tl es s be cau se ,

“ Defen da nt was tri ed fo r th e co rrec t ch arg e an d se nt en ced co rrec tl y , an d th e jury was

in st ru ct ed co rrec tl y on th e rig ht ch arg es .” (R.1 -1 1, Ex . Fol de r 4, Ap p. S a t 2 .) The

co ur t of ap pe al affi rm ed wit ho ut op in io n. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 4, App

. U.) Bu rg es s

ap pe al ed th e de ni al of hi s fir st m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f to th e Su pr em e Co ur t

of Fl or id a. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 4

, A p p

. CC.) Tha t co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e on th e

gr ou nd th at it lac ke d ju ris di ct io n. (R .1-1 1, Ex . Fol de r 4, Ap p. DD.)

Bu rg es s fil ed a se co nd m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel i e f i n whi ch he arg ue d,

am on g ot he r th in gs , th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to as se rt an App re nd i

ob jecti on at hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. (R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 4, App

. X at 3.) The ci rcu it

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n as a su bs eq ue nt m ot io n th at was pr oc ed ur al ly ba rred

. (R.1

-

611

, Ex. Fo ld er 4, App

. Y.) The co ur t of ap pe al ag ai n affi rm ed wit ho ut op in io n. (R.1

-

11 , Ex. Fo ld er 4 , App . AA.)

Bu rg es s th en fil ed th is 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on in fed eral co ur t. He as se rte d

ni ne gr ou nd s for reli ef, inc lu di ng th e th ree in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l clai m s

id en ti fie d ab ov e an d a cl ai m th at hi s li fe se nt en ce vi ol at ed Fl or id a la w. (R.1 -3 4 at 3-

5, 19 -2 1.) In br ie fs su pp or ti ng th e pe ti ti on , Bu rg es s arg ue d bo th th at th e se nt en ce

vi ol at ed Fl or id a la w an d th at it vi ol at ed hi s fe de ral rig ht to du e p ro ces s b ecau se th e

jury di d no t fin d th e us e of a fi rear m , th e fac t t ha t was us ed to en ha nc e hi s sen te nc e

to li fe i n p ris on rat he r th an 30 y ears . (R.2- 55 at 4 -5 .)

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e pe ti ti on

. The co ur t fo un d th at th e Fl or id a co ur t’s

de ci si on th at th e th ree in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl a i ms l i s t ed ab ov e are m eri tl es s

(b ecau se Bu rg es s was tri ed fo r th e co rrec t ch arg e, se nt en ced co rrec tl y , and th e jury

was in st ru ct ed co rrec tl y ) di d no t co ns ti tu te a de ci si on co nt rary to cl earl y es ta bl is he d

fed eral la w or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y es ta b l i s h e d f e de ral la w or an

un reas on ab le de te rm in a ti on of th e fact s of th e cas e. (R.2 -5 0 at 15 -1 6.) In a la te r

or de r, ad dr es si ng Bu rg es s’ ni nt h cl ai m to rel ie f ba se d on se nt en ci ng erro r, th e di st ric t

co ur t ad dr es se d th e st at e la w se nt en ci ng arg um en t Bu rg es s pr es en te d an d co nc lu de d

th at th e erro r al le ge d was no t a pr op er gr ou nd fo r fed eral ha be as rel ie f. (R.2 -5 9 at 5-

7. ) The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at an y App re nd i arg um en t was pr oc ed ur al ly ba rred

7fro m rev ie w be cau se Bu rg es s di d no t rai se it at hi s tri al or se nt en ci ng

. ( Id

. at 3.) Bu t,

th e di s t ric t co ur t ad dr es se d on th e m eri ts wha t it co ns id ered to be a di ffer en t du e

pr oc es s arg um en t– th at th e jury di d no t m ak e th e fin di ng th at a fir earm was us ed in th e

r o b be ry –a nd he ld th at Bu rg es s’ du e pr oc es s rig ht s were no t vi ol at ed be cau se th e

in fo rm at io n ch arg ed ro bb ery wit h “ a weap on , to wit

, a fir earm ;” th e on ly pr oo f at tri al

of an y weap on was pr oo f t ha t fir earm s were us ed ; th e jury was in st ru ct ed th at if it

fo un d th e us e of a fir earm , it sh ou ld fin d gu il t a s t o t h e c h a r ge of ro bb ery wit h a

weap on ; an d th e ch oi ce m ark ed by th e jury on th e ve rd ic t fo rm st at ed

, “ Gui lt y as

ch arg ed of P rin ci pa l t o R ob be ry wit h a weap on .” (

Id

. at 7-1 2.) B ur ge ss ap pe al s.

II I. I SSUES ON APPEAL

The di st ric t co ur t g r a nt ed Bu rg es s a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on hi s

se nt en ci ng erro r cl ai m on ly. Thi s co ur t ex pa nd ed th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y to

in cl ud e c l a i m s by Bu rg es s th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to m ov e fo r

di sm is sa l o f th e in fo rm at io n on th e gr ou nd th at th e ro bb ery ch arg e was du pl ic it ou s,

fo r fai li ng to m ov e fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

, an d fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o t h e ju ry

in st ru ct io ns

. 1

Bur g ess also arg

ues that his c ounsel was ineffe ctive in tha t he failed to arg ue that the information 1

was constructively amende d by the proof at trial and the court’s instructions to the jury

. We do not addre ss this arg

ument, as it is bey ond the scope of the cer tificate of appea lability

. S ee Mu rray v. United States

, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that appellate revie w is limit ed to the issues specifie d in the cer tificate of appea lability ).

8IV. STANDARDS OF REVI EW

W e co ns id er de no vo th e de ni al of ha be as rel ie f by t he di st ric t co ur t. Cr ow e

v. Hal l

, 49 0 F.3 d 84 0, 84 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) ( ci ti ng McNa ir v. Ca mpb el l

, 41 6 F.3 d

12 91

, 12 97 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 )). Bu rg es s’ ha be as pe ti ti on is go v e r n e d b y th e

Ant it erro ris m an d Eff

e c t i v e Deat h Pen al ty Act of 19 96

. The refo re, un le ss th e

de ci si on of th e Fl or id a co ur t “ (1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on t ha t was co nt rary to
, or

in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w, or ( 2)

res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e f a c t s

in li gh t o f th e ev id en ce pres en te d in st at e co ur t,” th at de ci si on wil l no t be dis tu rb ed

on ha be as rev ie w. Cl ar k v. Cr os by

, 33 5 F.3 d 13 03

, 13 08 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ); 28 U.S.C.

§ 2 25 4( d)

.

“ ‘W he th er [Bu rg es s] is pr oc ed ur al ly ba rred fro m rai si ng pa rti cu la r cl ai m s is a

m ix ed qu es ti on of la w an d fact th at we rev ie w de no vo .’ ” Ogl e v. Jo hn so n , 48 8 F. 3d

13 64

, 13 68 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) ( qu ot in g Bai le y v. Na gl e , 17 2 F.3 d 12 99

, 13 02 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 99 )).

9V. DISCUSSI ON

A. Due Pro ces s

Bu rg es s m ak es on e arg um en t reg ard in g hi s se nt en ce: th at it v i o la te s hi s du e

pr oc es s rig ht s be cau se it is ba se d on a fin di ng no t m ad e by a jury be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t, na m el y th at a fir earm was us ed in th e ro bb ery fo r wh i c h h e was co nv ic te d.

The Sta te res po nd s t ha t, t ho ug h B ur ge ss do es no t ci te App re nd i , hi s ar gu m en t i s an

App re nd i arg um en t t ha t: (a) i s p ro ced ur al ly barre d b ecau se Bu rg es s di d no t pres en t

it at tri al or se nt en ci ng ; and (b ) ha s no m eri t beca us e th e jury did fin d t ha t a fire arm

was us ed in th e ro bb ery.

W e ag ree wi th th e St at e th at , th ou gh Bu rg es s d oe s n ot id en ti fy it as su ch , hi s

du e pr oc es s arg um en t is an App re nd i arg um en t. A n d

, B u r g es s ne ve r rai se d th is

a r g u ment at tri al or se nt en ci ng

. Bu t, we do no t co nc lu de th at th is cl a i m i s

pr oc ed ur al ly ba rred

. Bu rg es s pr es en te d th e sa m e fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m th at he

pr e s en ts he re to th e Fl or id a co ur t of ap pe al

, on di rect ap pe al

. Tha t co ur t affi rm ed

Bu rg es s’ co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce in a pe r cu ria m op in io n wit ho ut reas on in g.

The refo re, we pr es um e th at th e co ur t of ap pe al de ci de d th e is s u e o n th e m eri ts

.

Har ri s v. Reed

, 4 8 9 U.S. 25 5, 26 3, 10 9 S. Ct

. 10 38

, 10 43 (1 98 9) (“ [A] pr oc ed ur al

de fau lt do es no t ba r co ns id erat io n of a fed eral cl ai m on ei th er di rect or ha be as rev ie w

un le ss th e la st st at e co ur t ren de rin g a jud gm en t in th e cas e cl earl y an d ex pr es sl y st at es

10th at it s jud gm en t res ts on a st at e pr oc ed ur al ba r.”) (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)

. And

, we

rev ie w t he st at e c o u rt’s act io n to de te rm in e if it “ (1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was

co nt rary t o , o r in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral

la w, or (2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of

th e fact s in li gh t of the ev id en ce pres en te d in st at e co ur t.” Cl ar k

, 33 5 F.3d at 13 08

.

Co ns id eri ng Bu rg es s’ du e pr oc es s cl ai m un de r th is st a n d a rd

, we fin d hi s

arg um en t m eri tl es s. Bu rg es s arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce was en ha nc ed by th e fact th at

a fir earm was us ed in th e ro bb e r y, whi ch fact was no t fo un d by t he jury. W e ag ree

wit h th e di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, th at th e jury co ns id ered an d de te rm in ed

, be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t
, t ha t Bu rg es s was gu il ty of carr y in g a fir earm in th e co ur se of

co m m it ti ng th e ro bb ery. As th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed

, th e in fo rm at io n ch arg ed Bu rg es s

wit h ro bb ery wit h a weap on , “ to wit

, a fir earm ;” at tri al

, th e on ly pr oo f of an y weap on

was pr oo f th at th e ro bb ers carr ie d two fir earm s; th e jury was in st ru ct ed th at if it fo un d

th at th e de fen da nt carr ie d a fir earm in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng th e ro bb ery, it sh ou ld

fin d gu il t as to th e ch arg e of ro bb ery wit h a weap on ; an d t he ve rd ic t ch oi ce m ark ed

by th e jury st at ed

, “ Gui lt y as ch arg ed of Pri nc ip al to Ro bb ery wit h a weap on .” The re

was no vi ol at io n of th e App re nd i ru le

. The st at e co ur t’s de ci si on was no t co nt rary to

cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w, di d no t in vo lv e an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y

11es ta bl is he d fe de ral la w, an d was no t bas ed on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of the

fact s.

B. Ass is ta nc e o f Co un se l

Bu rg es s argu es th at hi s cou ns el was in effe ct iv e be cau se he fai le d to ob ject to

th e in fo rm at io n as du pl ic it ou s in th at it ch arg ed m or e th an on e cr i me ( n a mely

,

ro bb ery w it h a weap on an d ro bb ery wit h a fir earm ) in a si ng le co un t an d th eref or e

fai le d to pr ov id e hi m wit h p ro pe r no ti ce o f th e cri m e ch arg ed . Bur ge ss als o arg ue s

th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to m ov e fo r acq ui tt al whe re th e St at e h ad

no t pr ov en th at th e fir earm s us ed in th e ro bb ery were weap o n s w i t h i n th e st at ut or y

de fin it io n. And

, Bu rg es s argu es th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to ob ject

to th e jury in st ru ct io ns be cau se th ey m is st at ed th e el em en ts of th e cri m e wit h whi ch

he was ch arg ed

. Sp eci fic al ly, Bu rg es s a rg ue s th at th e jury in st ru ct io ns in co rrec tl y

al lo wed th e jury to fin d hi m gu il ty of ro bb ery wit h a weap on if th e jury fo un d th at a

fir earm was us ed in th e ro bb ery. The se arg um en ts are ba se d on Bu rg es s’ co nt en ti on

th at th e st at ut or y de fin it io n of weap on ex cl ud es a fir earm

. Se e F l a. St at

. §

79 0.0 01 (1 3) (“ ‘W eap on ’ m ean s an y di rk

, kn ife

, m et al li c kn uc kl es , sl un gs ho t, bi ll ie

,

te ar ga s gu n, ch em ic al weap on or de vi ce, or ot he r de ad ly weap on ex cep t a fir earm or

a co m m on po ck et kn ife , pl as ti c k ni fe, o r bl un t-b la de d t ab le kn ife .”).

12In res po ns e to al l of Bu rg es s’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s, t h e S t a te arg ue s

th at th e st at e co ur t’s fin di ng th at Bu rg es s’ co un se l di d no t pe rfo rm de fic ie nt ly is

en ti tl ed to de fere nc e be cau se it do es no t co nf li ct wit h or un reas on ab ly ap pl y fed eral

la w. The St at e arg ue s th a t t h e in fo rm at io n ch arg ed Bu rg es s wit h on e cri m e on ly

–

pr in ci pa l to ro bb ery wit h a weap on

. And

, th e St at e arg ue s th at
, un de r Fl or id a la w, a

fir earm is a weap on

. In su pp or t of th is

, th e St at e ci te s: (a) Fl a. St a t

. § 7 9 0

. 0 0 1( 6)

,

de fin in g fir earm as “ an y weap on (in cl ud in g a st art er gu n) whi ch wil l, is de si gn ed to
,

or m ay read il y be co nv ert ed to ex pe l a pro jecti le by the act io n o f an ex pl os iv e; ” (b )

Dal e v. St at e , 70 3 So

. 2d 10 45

, 10 46 (Fl a. 19 97 ), ho ld in g t h a t t h e d e f in it io ns fo r

fir earm an d weapo n in th e Fl or id a St an da rd Ju ry In st ru ct io ns are cor rect st at em en ts

of th e la w; an d (c ) The Flo rid a St an da rd Ju ry In st ru ct io ns In Cri m in al Cas es whi ch

de fin e a weap on as “ an y ob ject th at co u l d be us ed to cau se de at h or in fli ct se rio us

bo di ly ha rm .” Fl a. St d. Ju ry In st r. (Cr i m.) 1 5

. 1

. The refo re, th e St at e arg ue s, th ere

was no de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce by Bu rg es s’ co un se l in no t m ov in g fo r acq ui tt al on th is

gr ou nd or i n n ot ob

jecti ng to th e jury ins tru ct io ns

.

All th ree of Bu rg es s’ in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl aim s pres en te d to th is

c o u r t f a il

. As th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed

, th ey do so fo r on e reas on : be cau se , i n

res po ns e to Bu rg es s’ firs t m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, th e ci rcu it co ur t fo un d

th at th ere was no erro r un de r st at e la w in th e m an ne r in whi ch Bu rg es s was ch arg ed

,

13in th e jury in st ru ct io ns , o r in th e se nt en ce. ( Se e R.1 -1 1, Ex. Fo ld er 4, App . S at 2.)

(“ Defen da nt was tri ed fo r th e co rrec t ch arg e an d se nt en ced co rrec tl y , an d th e jury was

in st ru ct ed co rrec tl y on th e rig ht ch arg es .”) Tha t de ci si on was affi rm ed by th e co ur t

o f a p p e a l

. W hi le th e affi rm an ce was a pe r cu ria m op in io n wit ho ut reas on in g, w e

pr es um e th at th e co ur t of ap pe al ’s de ci si on affi rm s th e r e a so ni ng , as well as th e

jud gm en t o f th e ci rcu it co ur t. “ ‘W he re th ere ha s be en on e rea so ne d s ta te jud gm en t

reject in g a fed eral cl ai m , la te r un ex pl ai ne d or de rs up ho ld in g th at ju d g men t or

reject in g th e sa m e cl ai m res t up on th e sa m e gr ou nd .’ ” Sw eet v. Se c’y, Dep t. of Co rr s. ,

46 7 F.3 d 13 11 , 1 31 6- 13 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) ( qu ot in g Y ls t v. Nu nn ema ker , 5 01 U.S.

79 7, 80 3, 11 1 S. Ct

. 25 90

, 25 94 (1 99 1) ); se e al so Har mon v. Bar to n , 89 4 F.2 d 12 68

,

12 73 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 90 ) (n ot in g th at th e “ cl ear in fere nc e” to be dr awn fro m a pe r cu ria m

affi rm an ce wit ho ut writ te n op in io n is th at th e ap pe ll at e co ur t “ acce pt ed no t on ly th e

jud gm en t b ut th e rea so ni ng of t he tri al co ur t.”)

.

Giv en th e st at e co ur ts ’ ho ld in gs , Bu rg es s can no t m ak e th e sh owi ng s req ui red

un de r fed eral la w to de m on st rat e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce. Und er St ri ckl an d v.

W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 10 4 S. Ct

. 20 52 (1 98 4)

, a de fen da nt cl ai m in g in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of cou ns el m

us t sh ow b ot h t ha t cou ns el ’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt an d

th at th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed th e de fen se

. Id

. at 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct

. at 20 64

.

If t h e c h a r gi ng do cu m en t, jury in st ru ct io ns , an d se nt en ce were al l co rrec t un de r

14F l o rid a la w, as th e Fl or id a co ur ts ha ve to ld us th ey were, Bu rg es s’ co un se l’s

pe rfo rm an ce in fail in g to ch al le ng e th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, the jury in st ru ct io ns , or

th e st at e’s pr oo f can no t be co ns i d e r e d d e f i c ie nt

. La dd v. Jo ne s , 8 64 F.2 d 10 8, 11 0

(1 1t h Ci r. 19 89 ) (h ol di ng whe re “ cl ai m s were m eri tl es s, it was cl earl y no t in effe ct iv e

fo r co u n s el no t to pu rs ue th em .”). The se fin di ng s al so m ean th at Bu rg es s can no t

s h ow th at he su ffer ed pr ejud ic e res ul ti ng fro m hi s at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce

. S e e

Lo ckh ar t v. Fret wel l, 50 6 U.S. 36 4, 37 4, 11 3 S. Ct

. 83 8, 84 5 (1 99 3) (“ th e co ur t

m ak in g th e pr ejud ic e de te rm in at io n m ay no t co ns id er th e effe ct of an ob jecti on it

k n o w s t o b e w h o l l y m e r i t l e s s u n d e r c u r r e n t g o v e r n i n g l a w

. . . . ” ) ( O ’ C o n

n o r , J

. c o n c u

r r i n g )

.

Bu rg es s is co rrec t th at th e in fo rm at io n was co nf us in g in th at it ci te d Fl a. St at

.
§ 81 2.1 3( 2) (b ) (ro bb ery wit h a w e a p o n ) bu t id en ti fie d th e weap on as a fir earm

. It

ap pe ars to th is co ur t th at th e in fo rm at io n sh ou ld ha ve ci te d Fl a. St at

. § 81 2.1 3( 2) (a)

(ro bb ery wit h a fi rear m ) in st ead . In an effo rt to ad dr es s th e co nf us in g in fo rm at io n,

th e St at e arg ue s th at a fir earm is a w e a p o n u nd er Fl or id a la w. Tha t arg um en t,

ho wev er, do es no t ex pl ai n th e fact th at Bu rg es s was se nt en ced to li fe in pr is on ev en

th ou gh th e st at ut or y m ax im um pe na lt y f

o r r o b b e ry wit h a weap on in vi ol at io n of

se ct io n 81 2.1 3( 2) (b ) is 30 y ears im pr is on m en t. Bu t, th e pr op rie ty of th e se nt en ce,

un de r Fl or id a la w—wh ic h Bu rg es s’ co un se l di d ob ject to —i s no t be fo re us in th is

ap pe al

.

15The Fl or id a courts ha ve de te rm in ed th at th e erro rs Bu rg es s al le ge s do no t ex is t.

W he th er we ag ree wit h th e st at e co ur ts ’ as se ss m en t reg ard in g th e co rrec tn es s of th e

ch arg in g do cu m en t, jury in st ru ct io ns , or se nt en ce is irr el ev an t. Our rev ie w is li m it ed

to de te rm in in g whe th er th e st at e co ur ts reac he d a res ul t co nt rary t o or in vo lv in g an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w or an u n r eas on ab le

de te rm in at io n of th e fact s. The st at e co ur ts ’ de ci si on th at Bu rg es s’ rig ht to co un se l

was no t vi ol at ed res ts on in te r p r e t a t i o n of Fl or id a la w. It do es no t co nf li ct wit h or

un reas on ab ly ap pl y an y fed eral la w. And

, it is no t ba se d up on an un reas on ab le

fact ua l fi nd in g.

VI. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th es e reas on s, fed eral ha be as co rp us rel ie f is no t av ai la bl e to Bu rg es s. The

di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly den ie d t he pe ti ti on

.

AFFIR MED.

16