FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 7, 2005 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. 04- 12468 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo . 0 0
- 0 2 6 0 9
- C V- T
- 2 7
- T GW R O G E R L A P L A N T E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s J A M E S C R O S B Y , S e c r e ta r y , D e p a r tm e n t o f C o r r e c tio n s , C H A R L E S C R I S T , A tto r n e y G e n e r a l o f th e S ta te o f

F lo r id a , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

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

_________________________ ( J une 7, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R o g er L apl ant e, a F l ori da st at e pri soner s ervi ng a l i fe se nt ence for s exual ba t t e r y of

a s i x- y e a r - ol d c hi l d, c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s pr o s e 28 U . S
. C
. § 22 5 4 h abe a s pe t i t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d a c e r t i f i c a t e ofThe COA is limited to thi s issue. L aplante f iled a motion to expand the COA, which we 1 pre vio us ly

denie d, bo th o n initi a l c on sid e ratio n a nd on re c on sid erat io n. Ac c ording ly , w ewi ll consider L aplante’ s argument o n l y o n th e C OA’s issue, a nd not on additional arguments that are beyond the scopeof the COA. SeeDorsey v. Chapman, 262 F .3d 1181, 1185 n.3 (11th Cir. 2001) (dec lining to address issues not included in the COA grante d by the district court). We also note that L aplante’ s assertion that the trial court’s closure of the cour troom violated Florida law does not provide a basis for federal ha beas relief. Cf. B rana

n v. Booth, 861 F .2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988) (“ a habe as petition grounded on i s s u es of state law provides no basis for habea s relief

”). Thus, in addition to be i n g beyond the scopeof the COA, that a rgument is not an appropriate ground for

federal ha

beas relief. 2 ap p ea lab il ity ( “C O A ”) , o n th e f o ll o w in g issu e: “w h eth er th e F lo rid a trial co u rt’s cl osure of the courtroom du ri ng the 6-ye ar -ol d chi l d v i ct im ’s testi m on y c om pl i ed
w i th th e f

o u r - p a r tt e s ts e to u ti n W a l l e rv . G e o r g i a , [ 4 6 7 U . S. 3 9 , 1 0 4 S. Ct
. 2 2 10, 8 1 L . E d . 2 d 3 1 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ], a s a p p lie d in J u d d v . H a le y , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , F la . S ta t. § 9 1 8 .1 6 n o tw ith s ta n d in g .” 1 W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s g ran t o r de ni a l of a § 2254 ha be a s pe t i t i on de
n o v o . S e e S i m s v . S i n g l e t a r y , 1 5 5 F . 3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 )
. I n W illia m s
v . Ta y l o r , 5 2 9 U . S. 3 6 2 , 120 S. Ct
. 1 4 9 5 , 1 4 6 L. Ed
. 2 d 3 8 9 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th e Su p r e me C our ts e tf

or t h t h e st a nda r d of

r e vi e w t o be a ppl i e d t o a s t a t e pr i s one r ’ s a ppl i c a t i on f o rh a b e a s r e lie f

b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U . S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . A c c o r d in g to th e C o u r t, § 2254( d) ( 1) “ pr ohi bi t s a f e de r a l c our tf

r om gr a nt i ng a n a ppl i c a t i on f or a w ri t of h ab eas c o r p u s w ith resp ectt o a cl ai m ad j u d i cat ed o n th e m eri t s i n st at e co u rtu n l ess th atadj ud i ca t i on ‘ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as cont ra ry t o, or i nv ol ved an
unr e a s ona bl e a p p l i cat i on of , c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w a s de t e r m i ne d by theThe a pplicable version of § 918.16 provided: 2 In the trial of a ny case , civil or criminal, when any person under the a g eof 16
. . . is te sti fy

ing c on c e rning any

se x off e ns e , th ec ourt

sh a ll clea r the c ourtroom of all persons except p arties to the c ause a nd the ir imm e diatefa

mil ie s o r gua

rdians , atto rn e ys and

the ir se c retari e s, of fi c e rs of thec ourt , ju

ro rs , n e wspaper repo rt e rs or broadc a sters , c ourt repo rt e rs , a

nd , at th e re qu e st o f t

hevic tim , v ic timor

wi tne ss advocates designated by

the state attorney ’s offic e. Fla. Stat. § 918.16 (1997)
. 3 S upr e m e C our tof

the U ni t e d S t at es. ’ ” I d. a t399, 120 S
. C t . a t1516 ( quot i ng 28 U . S
. C
. § 2 25 4(d)(1)). A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, i nc l udi ng the pe r t i ne nttr a ns c r i pt s , and
c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e f i n d n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o ra n d a f f i r m. L a p la n te w a s t r i e d a n d c o n v ic te d o f o n e c o u n t o f

s e x u a l b a tte r y o n a c h ild l e s s th a n tw e l v e y e a r s o f a g e a n d o n e c o u n to f l e w d a n d l a s c i v i o u s a c t s i n t he pr e s e nc e of

a ch i l d , al l i n vi ol a t i on of F l or i da l a w . P ur s ua ntt o F l a . S t a t . § 918. 16, 2 th e s ta te tr ia l c o u r t c lo s e d th e c o u r t r o o m d u r in g th e te s tim o n y o f th e s ix
- y e a r - o ld vi c t i m c onc e r ni ng he rc ont a c tw i th L a pl a nt e . U pon the S t a t e ’ s r e que s tf orthe clo su re , th e trial co u rt, w ith o u t o b jectio n b y L ap lan te, o rd er ed th e g e n e r al p u b li c’s
e xc l us i on dur i ng the vi c t i m ’ s t e s t i m ony . O ve rL a pl a nt e ’ s s ubs e que ntobj e c t i on, the tr i a l c our ta l s o e x cl u de d L a pl a nt e ’ s f a m i l y f r om the c our tr oom dur i ng the te s tim o n y . O n d ir e c t a p p ea l fro m h is co n v icti o n , L ap lan te ar g u ed th at th e trial co u rt’sTh epa rtie s d ebatewh e ther t

his c a seinv olv e s a

tot a l c los ureor

a pa rtial c los ure , w ith in 3 the meaningof F la. Stat. § 918.16 and our de cisions in Judd and Doug las v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984). For purpos es o f o ur analysis of the Waller claim, weassume, without deciding , that this was a total closure and, according ly , the s tate court’s decision had to satisfy the Waller test. See Judd, 250 F.3d at 1315 (obser ving that in both partial and total closures, “a c ourt mus t h ol d a

he aringand

artic ulatesp e c if

icfinding s, ”but ho ldingthat only a tot a l c los uremus t “satisfy the elements of the more rig orous Waller test.” (quotation omitted)); cf. D oug las, 739 F.2d at 532 (findingcourtroom c losure wa s only partial be cause“the press and f am ily members of

the defendant, witness, and de cedent wereallowed to remain”). 4 c lo s u r e o f

th e c o u r tr o o m d id n o t c o m p ly w ith th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in W a l l e rv . G e o r g i a , 4 6 7 U . S. 3 9 , 1 0 4 S. Ct
. 2 2 1 0 , 8 1 L. Ed
. 2 d 3 1 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , w h i c h, t he p a r t i e s a g r e e , i s th e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l l a w , w i th i n th e me a n i n g o f t he A E D P A , o n th e i ssu e o f co u r tr o o m cl o su res i n ci rcu m st an ces su ch as th o se pr e s e nt e d he r e . T hus , L a pl a nt e e xha us t e d thi s c l a i m i n th e st at e c our tpr oc e e di ngs pri or t o b ri ng i ng thi s f eder al habeas ac t i on . T he st at e ap p ellate co urtaf fi rm ed L apl ant e’ s c on vi ct i on i n a per cu riam sum m ary dec i si on . S ee L apl ant e v. S t at e, 73 6 S o. 2d 11 90 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 99 ) ( T abl e)
. L a pl ant e the n f

i l e d thi s c l a i m f

orf e de r a l ha be a s r e l i e f

, a ga i n a s s e r t i ng a vi o l a t i o n o f W a l l e r b a s e d o n th e c l o s u r e o f th e c o u r tr o o m, i n c l u d i n g e x c l u s i on of hi s fa m i l y m em bers , du ri ng the vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m on y. In W al l er , the st at e tri al co u rt 3
c l o s e d a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g o v e r th e o b j e c t i o n o f th e d e f

e n d a n t o n a c c o u n tof

t he pri vacy i nt er es ts o f ce rt ai n i nd i vi du al s w ho coul d b e hea rd on the vari ou s w i re t ap
r e c or di ngs tha tw e r e t o be pr e s e nt e d. S e e 467 U
. S
. a t41- 42, 1 0 4 S
. C t . at2212- 13. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t in o r d e rf o rth e c lo s u r e o f

th e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g to5

b e in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts , [ 1] the pa r ty s e e ki ng t o c l os e the he a r i ng m us ta dva nc e a n o v erri d i ng i nt e r e s ttha ti s l i ke l y t o be pr e j udi c e d , [ 2] the c l os ur e m us tbe no b ro ad er th an n ecessary to p ro te c tth ati n t erest , [3 ] th e tri al co u rtm u st c o n s id e rr e a s o n a b le a lte r n a tiv e s to c lo s i n g th e p r o c e e d in g , a n d [ 4 ] it m u s t m a k e f

in d in g s a d e q u a te to s u p p o r t th e c lo s u r e . Id. at 4 8 , 1 04 S
. C t . at22 16
. T he C ou rtthen d et erm i ned t hatthe cl osure i n t hat
ca se w as pl ai nl y notj ust i fi ed because (1) “ the S t at e’ s proff erw as no tspec i fi c” ; ( 2 ) “ t h e tr i a l c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs w e r e br oa d a nd ge ne r a l ” ; ( 3) “ [ t ] he c our tdi d not
c ons i de ra l t e r na t i ve s t o i m m edi a t e c l os ur e of the e nt i r e he a r i ng” ; a nd ( 4) “ the
c l os ur e w as f

a rm or e e xt e ns i ve tha n ne c e s s a r y . ” I d. a t48- 49, 104 S
. C t . a t2216- 1 7 . H e r e , i n r e

j e c t i ng La pl a nt e ’ s a r gu me nt ba s e d on W a l l e r , the di s tr i c tcourt obs e r ve d the f

ol l ow i ng: P e titio n e rh a s n o t e s t a b lis h e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t’s d e c is io n to cl ose the courtroom du ri ng the chi l d v i ct i m ’ s t es t i m on y w as cont ra ry to o ra n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p l i c a tio n o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h o ld in g in W al l er , and i t s progeny. T h e trial cou rtm ade s uffi ci entfa ctual fi nd i ng s t o enabl e are vi ew of w hether the d ec isio n t o cl ose the tri al w as ap p ro p riate a n d n o b ro ad er th an n ec es sa ry to p ro tect th e c h il d ’s i nt e r e s t s , c ons i de r i ng S u p re m e C our tpr e c e de nt . T hos e f i ndi ngs a d d r e s s e d th e c h ild ’s te n d e ra g e , th e s e n s itiv e a n d p o te n tia l tr a u m a tic nature of her e xp ec t ed t es t i m on y a nd the neces si ty o f p ro t ec t i ng her i nt er es t s over the S i xt h A m endm entri gh t s of the P et i t i on er . T he co u rt approp ri at el y w ei gh ed the com pet i ng i nt er es t s, co nsi dere d t he m anner i n w hi ch the com pet i ng i nt er es t s c ou l d b es t b e se rv ed and fou nd that the st at e had an ov erri di ng i nt eres ti n t he vi ct i m ’ s w el fa re w hi ch o u tw e ig h e d P e titio n e r ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r i g h t to a p u b lic tr ia l.6

P et i t i on erhas f

ai l ed to d em o nstra t e by c l ea r a nd conv i nci ng evi dence th a t th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is i o n w a s c o n tr a r y to o ra n u n r e a s o n a b le appl i ca t i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtl aw or an 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 . (f oo tno t e om i t t ed). W e t oo c onc l ude tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c our t ’ s cl o sur e of the c our tr oom dur i ng the v i ct i m ’ s t es t i m on y, as w el l as the st at e app el l at e c ou rt ’ s a ff i rm ance of that deci si on i n L apl ant e’ s di re ctappeal ra i si ng thi s W al l ercl ai m , 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, cl ea rl y e st abl ished S up re m e C ou rtl aw , as s t a t e d i n W a l l e r . O n the f i r s tf a c t or , the pr os e c ut ors t a t e d tha ts he w a nt e d the courtroom cl osed so th at “t h e ch i l d [coul d] t es t i fy i n rel at i ve ca l m . ” T he st at e tri al
c o u r t to o k th is to m e a n th e p r o s e c u to rw a s c o n c e r n e d w ith “th e p r o te c tio n o f th is
c hi l d. ” T he S upr e m e C our tha s r e c ogni z e d the pr ot e c t i on of “ the phy s i c a l a nd ps y c hol ogi c a l w e l l
- be i ng o f a m i n o r ” i s a “ c om pe l l i ng” s t a t e i nt e r e s ti n the c ont e xt of a c our tr oom c l os ur e dur i ng a c r i m i na l tr i a l i nvol vi ng t h e for c i bl e r a pe a nd f or c e d unna tur a l r a pe of thr e e m i nor s . G l obe N e w s pa pe rC o. v. S upe ri o r C our tf or N o r f o lk C o u n ty , 4 5 7 U .S . 5 9 6 , 6 0 7 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 2 6 1 3 , 2 6 2 0 ( 1 9 8 2 )
. A s f or the se cond W al l erfa ct or, al tho ug h t he prosecut or soug hta t ot al cl osure duri ng the tri al , w i th t he except i on of the vi ct im ’s ad v o ca t e, the st at e tri al
c our tl i m i t e d the t ot a l cl o s ur e t o the m i nor - vi c t i m ’ s t e s t i m ony . L a pl a nt e di d not obj e c tt o the i ni t i a l r e que s tf ora c l os ur e , a nd w he n he obj e c t ed t o the e xc l us i on of7

m em bers of hi s f

am i l y, the tri al co u rt fo un d t hatthe prot ec t i on of the chi l d (a
c o m p el l i n g st at e i n t erest u n d er G l o b e N ew sp ap er) req u i red th e fam i l y m em b ers to b e e x c lu d e d a lo n g w ith th e g e n e r a l p u b lic
. O n t he thi rd fa ct or, i ti s c l ea r thatthe st at e tri al courtco n sid er ed ot her
a l t ern at i ve s , i nc l udi ng w he the rt o c l os e the c our tr oom t o e ve r y body , i nc l udi ng the de f e nd a nt ’ s f

a mi l y a nd the vi c t i m’ s a dv oc a t e . The tr i a l c ou r tul t i ma t e l y c oncl ud ed th at th e v i ct i m ’ s a dv ocat e s ho ul d b e perm i t t ed t o rem ai n and , there fore , m od i fi ed the or i gi na l rul i ng e xc l udi ng e ve r y one . A f t e r c ons i de r i ng f

ur the r a r g u m en to n w hy th e d e f e n d a n t’s f

a m ily a ls o s h o u ld r e m a in , th e c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t “in th is pa r t i c ul a ri ns t a nc e the pr ot e c t i on of thi s c hi l d outw e i g h s an y S i xth A m e ndm e nt ri gh tthat[L apl ant e] m ay have t o h ave the m em bers of hi s f am i l y pre se nt . ” F in a lly , o n th e f

o u r th W a lle rf

a c to r , th e tr ia l c o u r t ’ s f in d in g s w e r e a d e q u a te to s u p p o r t its d e c is io n to c lo s e th e c o u r tr o o m . S o m e f a c to r s th a t a r e im p o r ta n t to
c ons i de ri nc l ude “ the m i norvi c t i m ’ s ag e, ps y c hol ogi c a l m a tur i ty a nd unde r s t a ndi ng, t h e n at u re of the c r i m e , the de s i r e s of the vi c t i m , a nd the i nt e r e s t s of pa r e nt s a n d rel a t i ve s . ” G l obe N e w s pa pe r , 457 U
. S
. a t608, 102 S
. C t . a t2621 (f oo tno t e om i t t ed); se e a l so Judd , 25 0 F
. 3d at13 19 (d iscu ss ing t he l ac k o f e vi dence
on som e of these fa ct ors)
. H er e, the st at e c ou rtconsi d ered: (1) the vi ct i m ’ s a ge, co m m en ti n g ab o u t “ th e y o u n g ag e o f th e c h il d ,” an d a ls o n o ti n g th at sh e w as “a8

si x- y e a r - ol d” ; ( 2) the ps y c ho l og i c a l ma tur i ty a nd un de r s t a nd i ng of the vi c t i m w hen the c our te xpr e s s ed i t s u n d e r s t a ndi ng tha ts he w a s goi ng t o t e s t i f y c onc e r ni ng

“ ar ea s thatar e goi ng t o b e e xt re m el y s ensi t i ve t o t he chi l d an d p o ss ib l y tra um at i c” ; ( 3) the na tur e of the c r i m e a nd the r e s ul t i ng t e s t i m ony tha tw o u l d b e el i c i t e d, not i ng m or e tha n onc e tha tthi s w a s a “ s e x u al b at t ery” ca s e , a nd a l s o tha tthe t e s t i m ony w oul d c onc e r n “ e xtr e m e l y s e ns i t i ve ” f a c t s ; a nd (4 ) the i nt e r e s t s of the vi c t i m ’ s r e l a t i ve s w he n i ta l l ow e d f orthe vi c t i m ’ s a unt , w ho w as al so a c t i ng a s the
v ic tim ’s a d v o c a te , to r e m a in p r e s e n t d u r in g th e te s tim o n y . O n thi s r e c or d, ne i the rthe s t a t e tr i a l c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o cl o s e the c our tr oom northe s t a t e a ppe l l a t e c our t ’ s r e j e c t i on of

L apl a nt e ’ s W a l l e rc l a i m w as c ontr a r y t o, ora n unr e a s ona bl e a ppl i c a t i on of , W a l l e r . A l though the s a t e tr i a l c our tdi d not
e xpl i c i t l y st at e i tw a s a ppl y i ng the W a l l e rt e s t , w e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha ti tw a s not
o b jectiv ely u n re a s o n ab le fo r th e s tate ap p ellate co u rt to af firm th e trial co u rt’s deci si on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm the deni al of fe dera l habeas re l i ef
. AF F I RME D.