FI L ED U . S . C O U R T O F A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT Dec ember

18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1119 0

____ ____ ___ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 01 34 7- CV-J SM- TGW OBACH AN DL ER , Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us JAM ES MCDONOUGH, CHARLIE CRI ST, Re spon de nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ _ On Appeal from

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 18, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S, and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: O baCh an dle r w as c onvi ct ed of c ap ita l m ur de r an d se nte nc ed

to de ath inthe State of F lorida on Novem ber 4, 1994 . Af

ter his conviction and sentence we re af fi rm ed on d ir ec t a

ppe al , Ch an dle r v. S ta te , 702 S o. 2d 1 86 ( Fl a. 199 7) , state2

co ll at eral rel ie f was als o d en ie d a ndth atde ni al was a ffi rm ed , Cha nd le r v. St at e, 848 So . 2d 1 031 (F la . 200 3) . C handl er the n f ile d a28 U . S. C. § 22 54 p et iti on i n the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida . T ha t pe tit ion w as de nie d, Ch an dle r v. Cr osby , 454 F . S upp. 2d 1 137 (M . D . F la . 200 6) , and Ch an dle r ha s a

ppe al ed that de nia l. T he onl y iss ue on whic h C handl er w as gr an te d ac er

tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty inv olv es his c la im

that hi s tr ia l c ouns el r en de re d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e by

f ai lin g to m ove a second tim e for a change of venue. The f

acts and procedural history rel at in g t o t hi s cl ai m

are s etou t i n t he di st ric t co ur t’s o pi ni on . Id. at11 51 – 5 5. T o th e ex te nt C handl er

c ont en ds tha t, giv enthe e vid en ce that w as be fo re the state courts, their dec ision regar ding this claim wa s contrary

to, or involved an unr ea sona

ble appl ic at ionof

, c le ar ly e sta bli she d F ed er al law , a s de te rm ine d by the Suprem e Court of the United States,” 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(d)(1), or that it “ wa s based on an un re as ona

ble de te rm inatio n of

the f ac ts i n li ght

of the e vid en ce pr es en te d in the S tate c ourt pr oc ee din g, ” § 22 54( d) (2 ), w e re j ec t tha t c ont en tio n f

or the r ea sons set out in th e district court’ s thorou gh treatm ent of the subject. Chandler, 454 F. Supp . 2dat 1 15 6 –67 . W e ad d t o t ha t t reat m en t o nl y th es e ad di ti on al th ou gh ts . Fi rs t, the f

ac t tha t any

non -i ne ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m

r el at ing to ch an ge of

ve nue and pretrial publicity

m ay be procedurally

barre d does no t, in turn, bar3

consideration o f the claim that counsel was ineffe ctive for f ailing to pursue that cl ai m a t tri al and o n a

ppe al . T hose are tw o di ff er en t c la im s. W e have the ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m

be fo re us n ow , and i t i s no t pr oc ed ur al ly barr ed . Se co nd, sin ce the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e pe tit ionin thi s c as e, w e have is su edou r en ba nc de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pa , 45 9 F .3d11 21 (11 th Cir . 2006 ) (e n banc ). T he Cam pade ci sio n un de rs co re s th e fa ct that the bur de n a de fe ndant b ears w he n a tte m pti ng t o e sta

bli sh p re sum ed

pr ej udi ce is “ ane xtr em el y he av y one , ” an d r ei te rate s th at

“ [t ] he pr es um ed

pr ej udi ce pr inc ipl e is r ar el y ap pli ca ble and i s r es er

ve d f or an e xtr em e sit

ua tio n. ” I d. a t 11 43 ( int er na l m ar ks an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ). T hose pr inc ipl es m ak e it dif fi cu lt fo r a pe tit ion er

c la im ing his c ouns el w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o m ove f or ac hange of

ve nue to es ta

bli sh the r equis ite pr ej udi ce , w hic h ne ce ssi ta te s asho w ing that, a t a m ini m um , “ the re is a re asonable probabil ity

that the trial court w ouldhave, or at least should h ave, gr an te d am oti on f

or c hange of

ve nue if [ pe tit ion er ’ s] c ouns el ha d pr es en te d su cha m ot io n t o t he co ur t,” M eek s v . Mo or e, 21 6 F .3d95 1, 9 61 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). As the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed , “ Ch an dle r ha s no t e ve n c om e cl ose to the sor t of ev ide nti ar

y sho w ing ne ce ssary

to es ta bli sh tha t hi s de fe nse w as pr ej udi ce d by [tri al c ouns el ’ s] f

ai lur e to f ile ase co nd c hange of

ve nue m oti on. ” Ch an dle r, 454 F. S upp. 2d at 11 66.4

W e tur n no wto Ch an dle r’ s c ont en tio n th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by not gr an tin g hi m

an e vid en tiary

he ar ing a t whic h he c oul d pr es en t e vid en ce on this cl ai m . H e w as giv enan e vid en tiary he ar ing on the c la im

in state c ourt t o th e ex te nt tha t tri al c ouns el and p et iti one r him se lf te sti fi ed about thi s c la im

and the ir pr etri al r ea soni ng and s tr at eg y c onc er nin g it . S ee id. a t 11 63 ( re co unt ing som e of the ir te sti m ony ); Ch an dle r, 848 S o. 2d at 10 37. C handl er a lso pr of fe re d inthe state c oll at er al pr oc ee din g a195 -p ag e re port i n tw o part s by his e xpe rt

on the i s s u e, m ed i a c o n s u l t an tPau l Wil s o n . Th atre p o rtn o to n l y co n t ai n edWil s o n ’s opi nio ns b ut a lso de ta ile d de sc ri pti ons of the m ed iac ove ra ge , inc lud ing e xc er pts fro m a la rg e n um

be r of th e st or ie s ab ou t t he cas e th atwere p rin te d o r br oa dc as t. Ch an dl er, 4 54 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 1 15 7 –62 . T he state c ourts a cc ep te d a s tr ue the f ac tua l c ont en t of

the W ils on r ep ort and its attachm ents, insofar as they described the m edia coverage of the case. See Ch an dle r, 848 S o. 2d at 10 38 n . 8 ( not ing that su ppl em en ta l r ec or d c ont ai ns the W ils on r ep ort “ re gard ing the e xte nt and n at ur e of pr etri al pub lic ity ” an d “ w e m ust ac ce pt the f

ac tua l a lle ga tio ns m ad e by the de fe ndant t o th e ex te nt tha t the y are not refuted by

the rec ord”); S tate v. Chandler, No. CRC92–1743 8CFA NO (Fla. Cir. Ct . Jun e 28, 200 1) ( state tr ia l c ourt or de r de ny ing c oll at er al r el ie f) ( “ [T ] he defendant was per

m itted to supplem ent the record w ith the publicity he believed5

ex ist ed in O range Co unty . ”) . S o di d th e dis tr ic t c ourt, w hic h di sc uss ed the rep or t’s co nt en ts in co ns id erab le de ta il . Cha nd le r, 45 4 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 15 7 –62 . Be ca use Ch an dle r cannot

sho wthat “ the f

ac ts unde rl y ing his c la im w oul d be suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh b y c le ar and c onvi nc ing e vid en ce that but f or co nst itutio na l e rr or , no r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er w oul d have f

ound the appl ic an t gui lty of the und er ly ing of

fe nse , ” he c annot

f it w ith in the e xc ep tio ns t o § 2254 (e)( 2). As a result, that provision bars his contentio n that the dist rict court shou ld h av e co nduc te d an e vid en tiary he ar ing , if

w e fi nd tha t he “ fa ile d to de ve lop the factual basis of a c laim in State court procee ding s.” 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(e)( 2); se e H oll an d v. Ja ck son, 542 U . S. 934 , 652 – 53 , 124 S . Ct . 273 6, 273 8 ( 2004 ) (“ U nde r the ha

be as statut e, [ the pe tit ion er ’ s] st at em en t c oul d have be enthe subject of an evidentiary

hearing by

the District C ourt, but onlyif re spon dent was not a t f au lt in f ai lin g to de ve lop that e vid en ce in state c ourt, or ( if he w as a t f

au lt) if the c ondi tio ns p re sc ri be d by § 22 54( e) (2 ) w er e m et . ”) ; W ill iam s v. T ay lor , 529 U . S. 420 , 120 S . Ct . 147 9 ( 2000 ). T o th e ex te nt tha t the re is any f ac tua l ba sis f

or his c la im oth er than th at c ove re d inthe W ils on r ep ort, Ch an dle r did f ai l t o e xe rc ise due dil ige nc e in d ev el opi ng i t. I n th e state c ourts C handl er ne ve r poi nte d to any other evidence that he would attem pt to in troduce if given the chance. H e never specified what a dditi onal evidence he m ight h ave.6

T he re is an oth er

r ea son w hy

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fa ili ng t o co nduc t an e vid en tiary

he ar ing on this c la im . E xc ep t f or the W ils on r ep ort, the fa ct ua l a spe ct s of

w hic h th e state c ourts and the dis tr ic t c ourt t ook as tr ue f or pur pose s of thi s c la im , Ch an dle r m ad e no p ro ff er to the dis tr ic t c ourt of

any ev ide nc e that he w oul d se ek to intro duc e at

ahe ar ing . T he f

ai lur e to p ro ff

er any additio nal evidence defeats W ilson ’ s argum ent that he was e ntitled to an ad dit ion al e vid en tiary

he ar ing in fe de ra l c ourt. S ee D re wv. D ep t. of Co rr ec tio ns, 297 F. 3d 1 278, 129 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( re fe rr ing to “ our c le ar pr ec ed en t es ta bli shi ng tha t su cha lle ga tio ns are not e noug h to w ar

rant an e vid en tiary

he ar ing in the abse nc e of

any spe ci fi c fa ct

ua l pr of fe r or e vid en tiary

sup port” ); H ill v. Moore, 175 F.3d 915 , 922 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ To be e ntitled to an evidentiary he ar ing on this m atte r [an in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el c la im ] , pe tit ion er m ust pr of fe r ev ide nc e that, if

tr ue , w oul d e nti tle him

to re lie f. ”) ; se e al so T ej ad a v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551 , 1559 (11th Cir. 1991) (“ A petitioner is not entitled to an ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing , how ev er , w he n hi s c la im s are m er el y c onc lus or

y a lle ga tio ns un supp or te d b y

sp eci fic s.” ( in te rn al m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). Fo r the se r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of Ch an dle r’ s pe tit ion fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . AFFIR MED.