FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 29, 2008 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. 07- 12885 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -025 31 -C V -R W S -1 J A N I C E C A R L I S L E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R . L . C O N W A Y , S h e r if f , G w in n e tt C o u n ty , G e o r g ia , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 29, 2008) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

Jani ce C ar l i sl e, a G eorgi a s t at e pri soner c on vi ct ed of st al ki ng and agg ra vat ed s t a l ki ng, appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of he rpe t i t i on f

orhabe a s r e l i e f

, 28 U . S . C . § 2254. B e c aus e w e c onc l ude tha tthe s t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on w a s not c o n tr a ry t o o ra n u n r e a s o n ab l e ap p l i c a t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w , w e a f

f i rm. A cc ordi ng t o the re cord, M el i ss a B ai l eyhad d at ed T od d G i bb s f or tw o years b e f o r e s h e e n d e d th e r e la tio n s h ip , a t w h ic h tim e G ib b s b e g a n s ta lk in g B a ile y . A lth o u g h C a r lis le d id n o t k n o w B a ile y , s h e a n d G ib b s w e r e f r ie n d s . C a r lis le p l aced cal l s t o B ai l ey atw o rkan d ath o m e, fo l l o w ed B ai l ey, an d t o o kp i ctu res, w hi c h s he ga ve t o G i bbs . A f t e rB a i l e y m ove d t o a voi d G i bbs , C a r l i s l e m a i l e d a c e r tif ie d le tte rto B a ile y ’s p r io ra d d r e s s in o r d e rto d is c o v e rth e n e w a d d r e s s . T he r e a f t e r , G i bbs be ga n c ont a c t i ng B a i l e ydi r e c t l y . C a r l i s l e v. S t a t e , 273 G a . A pp. 567, 568 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2005) . C a r l i s l e appa r e nt l y kne w tha tG i bbs w a s s t a l ki ng B ai l ey , and she t ol d a fr i end thatshe w as hel pi ng G i bb s “ for the m on ey . ” P ol i ce i ss ued a st al ki ng w arrant , af t erw hi ch C ar l i sl e c on t ac t ed B ai l ey ’ s f am i l y and as ked i f pol i c e w e r e try i ng t o a rr e s tG i bbs f ors t a l ki ng. O n N ove m be r12, 1996, G i bbs w a s a rr e s te d , b u t r e le a s e d o n b o n d w ith th e c o n d itio n th a t h e h a v e n o c o n ta c t w ith B a i l e y . C a r l i s l e t ol d af r i e nd tha ts he kne w G i bbs ha d be e n a rr e s t e d be c aus e he v io la te d ar e s tr a in in g o r d e r . I d . a t 5 6 9 . O n D e c e m b e r2 0 , 1 9 9 6 , B a ile y r e tu rn e d to he rapa r tm e nta nd f

ound G i bbs a tt e m pt i ng t o ga i n e ntry . W he n the pol i c e a rr i ve d,3

th e y f o u n d C a r lis le in th e c a rin f r o n t o f th e ap a r tm e n t a n d G ib b s a tte m p tin g to b r e a kin to B a ile y ’s h o m e . C a r lis le a d m itte d th a t s h e k n e w G ib b s w a s try in g to brea k i nt o the apartm ent . W hi l e i n j ai l , G i bb s a tt em pt ed t o con t ac tB ai l ey , bu tw as l i m i t e d t o c ol l e c tc a l l s thr ough the ope r a t or . C a l l s on B a i l e y ’ s a ns w e r i ng m a c hi ne i ncl ud ed the col l ec t -c al l gree t i ng . G i bb s then u se d C ar l i sl e t o m ake athree -w ay ca l l t o B ai l ey . C ar l i sl e w as then arre st ed and charged w i th st al ki ng and agg ra vat ed s ta lk in g . I d . F o llo w in g ab e n c h tr ia l, C a r lis le w a s c o n v ic te d o n b o th c o u n ts . I d . a t 5 6 7 . O n app ea l , the G eorgi a C ou rtof A pp ea l s overturned the conv i ct i on for a gg ra vat ed st al ki ng , fi nd i ng thatthe evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sho w thatC ar l i sl e knew G ib b s w a s s u b

je c t to ac o n d itio n o f

b o n d to s ta y a w a y f

r o m B a ile y , a s a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. I d . a t 5 7 2 . T he G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rtre vers ed i n p art , concl ud i ng thatthe evi dence w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h tha tC a r l i s l e w a s a w a r e of ac our tor de rpr ohi bi t i ng G i bbs f r om c ont a c t i ng B a i l e y . T he c our tf ur the rhe l d tha tthe s t a t e w a s not r e qui r e d t o pr ove the s pe c i f i c type of

c our tor de rtha tpr ohi bi t e d c ont a c t . B a s e d on the e vi de nc e , the c ourtthe n c onc l ude d ar e a s onabl e f a c tf i nde rc oul d ha ve f

ound C a r lis le k n e w o f

ac o u rt o r d e rp r o h ib itin g G ib b s f r o m h a v in g c o n ta c t w ith B a ile y . S t at e v. C ar l i sl e, 28 0 G a. 77 0, 77 2 (G a. 20 06 ). C ar l i sl e f i l ed for c ert i orar i , w hi ch4

the U . S . S upr e m e C ourtde ni e d. C a r l i s l e the n f i l e d the i ns t a nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on, a r gui ng tha the rc onvi c t i on w a s ba s e d on i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended d enyi ng the pet i t i on because there w as suff i ci entevi dence for are as on abl e tri erof fa ctt o con cl ud e thatC ar l i sl e knew the r e w a s ac ourtor de r , and tha ts t a t e l a w di d notr e qui r e tha ts he kne w the type of or de ra ti s s ue . T he di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on, o v e rC a r lis le ’s o b

je c tio n s , a n d d e n ie d r e lie f . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d ac e r tif ic a te of appeal abi l i ty on the i ss ue of suff i ci encyof the evi dence. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of habeas re l i ef de no vo , w hi l e f

ac tual fi n d i n g s m ad e b y th e d i stri ctco u rtare rev i ew ed fo r cl ear erro r. S i m s v . S i n g l et ary, 155 F . 3d 1297, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . I n r e vi e w i ng as t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on denyi ng habeas re l i ef

, a f eder al courti s prohi bi t ed fr om grant i ng habeas re l i ef u n le s s th e s ta te d e c is io n w a s ( 1 ) “c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw , as 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 ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in l i g h to f th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n th e St a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . A s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n is “c o n tr a ry to ” c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f e d e r a l la w if e ith e r“( 1 ) th e s ta te c o u rt ap p lie d aru le th a t c o n tr a d ic ts th e g o v e rn in g la w s e t f o rth5

b y S u p r e m e C o u rt c a s e la w , o r( 2 ) w h e n f a c e d w ith m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h ab le f a c t s , th e s t a t e c o u rta rr i v e d a tar e s u l td i f f e r e n tf r o m th a tr e a c h e d i n aSu p r e me C o u r tc a s e . ” P u tm a n v . He a d , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 4 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . An “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ” o f c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w m a y o c c u rif th e s ta te c our t“ i de nt i f

i e s the c orr e c tl e ga l rul e f r om S upr e m e C our tc a s e l a w but u n r e a s o n ab 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 . T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d, i n the cont extof a s t at e pri soner’ s habea s c ha l l e nge t o the s uf

f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e t o s uppor the rc onvi c t i on, tha tthe

“ cri t i cal i n q u i ry” i s “ w h eth er, aft er v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl 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

ound the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” J ac kson v. V i rgi ni a, 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 8 - 1 9 , 9 9 S .C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L .E d .2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) , o v e rru le d o n o th e rg r o u n d s b y S c h lu p v . D e lo , 5 1 3 U .S . 2 9 8 , 1 1 5 S .C t. 85 1, 13 0 L . E d. 2d 80 8 (19 95 ). T he C ou rtno t ed thati ti s the du ty of the tri erof fa ct

“ t o res ol ve confl i ct s i n the t es t i m on y, t o w ei gh the evi dence, and t o d raw r e a s o n ab le in f

e r e n c e s f r o m b a s ic f

a c ts to u ltim a te f

a c ts ,” a n d s tr e s s e d th a t a r e vi e w i ng c ourtm a y nots ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm e nta s t o w he the ri tbe l i e ve s the evi dence t o b e s uffi ci entt o sust ai n a conv i ct i on . Id. In addi t i on , “ [i ] n a fe dera l h ab ea s c o rp u s p ro ce ed in g , a fe d er al co u rt is b o u n d b y th e s tate co u rt’s6

i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

as t a t e c r i m i na l s t a tut e . ” G a r c i av. P e rr i nge r , 878 F . 2d 360, 362 (11th C i r. 19 89 ) ( ci t i ng B ronst ei n v . W ai nw ri gh t , 64 6 F . 2d 10 48 , 10 50 (5th C i r. U n it B 1 9 8 1 ) ) . M or e ove r , as t a t e c ourt ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e pr e s um e d c orr e c t , a nd the p e t i t i o n e rc a n r e b u tth e m o n l y b y c l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . F o ras ta te c o u rt’s a d ju d ic a tio n to r e s u lt in a n u n r e a s o n ab le de t e rm i na t i on of

the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d, “ [ n] otonl y m us tthe f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i on ha ve be e n unr e a s onabl e , butthe s t a t e c our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs m us tbe s how n unr e a s onabl e by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . ” C a l l a ha n v. C a m p b e ll, 4 2 7 F .3 d 8 9 7 , 9 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e b u r d e n is o n th e p e titio n e rto e s tab lis h th a t th e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s a r e u n r e a s o n ab le . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . M or e ove r , i n ahabe a s pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , i ti s the p e t i t i o n e r ’ s b u r d e n t o p r o d u c e th e r e l e v a n tp o r t i o n s o f th e r e c o r d . 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( f ) . T h e s ta te tr ia l tr a n s c r ip ts a r e n o t p ar t o f th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l. T h u s , C a r lis le has notm ether burden and w e def ert o the st at e c ou rt ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s, as re ci t ed in th e c o u rt o p in io n s . I n G e or gi a , ape r s on c om m i t s the of f e ns e of a ggr a va t e d s t a l ki ng w h e n s u c h p e r s o n , in v io la tio n o f ab o n d to k e e p th e p e a c e . . . , t e m por a ry r e s tr a i ni ng or de r , t e m por a ry pr ot e c t i ve or de r , pe rm a ne nt7

r e s tr a i ni ng or de r , pe rm a ne ntpr ot e c t i ve or de r , pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on, go od behavi or bo nd , or perm anenti nj un ct i on or cond i t i on of pretri al re l ea se , cond i t i on of prob at i on , or cond i t i on of parol e i n eff ec t proh i bi t i ng the behavi or desc ri bed i n thi s s ub se ct i on , fol l ow s, pl ac es unde rs urve i l l anc e , orc ont a c t s a nothe rpe r s on a toraboutapl a c e or pl a c e s w i thoutthe c ons e ntof the othe rpe r s on f

orthe purpos e of ha r a s s i ng a nd i nt i m i da t i ng the othe rpe r s on. O .C .G .A . § 1 6 - 5 - 9 1 ( a ) . H e r e , C a r lis le ’s f r ie n d D a n aR o b e r ts te s tif ie d th a t C a r lis le t ol d he rtha tG i bbs ha d vi ol a t e d ar e s tr a i ni ng or de r . C a r l i s l e m a de thi s s t a t e m e nt a f te rG ib b s ’s N o v e m b e ra rr e s t b u t p r io rto th e D e c e m b e ra rr e s t. C a r lis le a ls o to ld R ob ert s thatG i bb s w as se eki ng psyc hi atri c c ar e i n an eff ortt o h ave the charges drop ped, and h e r ec ei ved thi s c ar e bef ore hi s D ec em ber a rr es t . C athy C l ark t es t i fi ed thatC ar l i sl e di sc usse d h eref fort s t o h elp G i bb s s t al k the vi ct i m , and that C ar l i sl e knew G i bb s w as no t“ supp osed t o b e aroun d” the vi ct i m and that“ he had a lr e a d y b e e n c h a r g e d o ra rr e s te d f o rs ta lk in g ” h e r . 2 8 0 G a . a t 7 7 3 - 7 7 4 . De f e rr i n g t o th e s t a t e c o u rt ’ s f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s a n d i t s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f i t s o wn la w s , th e r e w a s s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to e s tab lis h th e e le m e n ts o f a g g r a v a te d s ta lk in g . T h e te s tim o n y p r e s e n te d w o u ld h a v e p e rm itte d ar e a s o n ab le tr ie ro f f a c t to c onc l ude tha tC a r l i s l e w a s a w a r e tha tG i bbs w a s unde rac our tor de rt o r e f r a i n f r om c ont a c t i ng the vi c t i m . T he f a c ttha tC a r l i s l e m a y notha ve know n the e xa c ttype of c our tor de ri s notr e l e va nt , a s the G e or gi aS upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tthe type of or de ri s nota n e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e . S e e i d. a t772.8

B e c aus e C ar l i s l e ha s nots how n the s t a t e c our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs t o be un re as on abl e, and thi s c ou rtm ustdefe r t o the st at e c ou rt ’ s f i nd i ng s, there w as s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d f orar e a s onabl e tr i e rof

f a c tt o f i nd C a r l i s l e gui l ty of a g g r a v a te d s ta lk in g . A c c o r d in g ly , th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to no r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of fe dera l l aw , and w e AF F I RM the de ni a l of habeas re l i ef

.