FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 12, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Nos . 09 -1 13 22 , 09 -1 15 39 & 0 9- 13 78 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNos . 08 -2 09 61 -CV-PAS , 08 -2 09 63 -CV-C MA, 08 -2 09 64 -CV-FAM YANET D UHARTE, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Resp on de nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 12 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andDAW SON, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: On J ul y 14 , 20 06 , Yane t Du ha rte pl ead edgu il ty to t wo s ep arat e in di ct m en ts pe nd in g i n F lo rid a st at e co urt (h erei na fte r th e “ 20 06 co nv ic ti on s” ). Pur su an t t o
Honora ble Robert T. Da

wson, United States District J udg e for the Western District of * Arka nsas, sitting by

desig nation.he r pl ea ag reem en t, Du ha rte als o p le ad edgu il ty to t hr ee p ro ba ti on vi ol at io ns (th e

“pr ob at io n v io la ti on s” ). Thu s, i n t he Ju ly 14, 2 00 6 p le a ag reem en t, Du ha rte ad m it te d wro ng do in g i n fi ve cas es , bu t i n t hr ee o f th e cas es th e wro ng do in g was li m it edto pro ba ti on vi ol at io ns . Pu rs ua ntto th e p le a ag reem en t, Du ha rte was t o b e se nt en cedto co nc urren t 20 -y ear s en te nc es forbo th 20 06 co nv ic ti on s. Sh e was no t t o re cei ve 20 -y ear
se nt en ces forth e p ro ba ti on vi ol at io ns , ho wev er, an d i n fa ctun de r Fl or id a la w
co ul d n otrece iv e g reat er t ha n a5-year s en te nc e fo r eac h s uc h p ro ba ti on vi ol at io n. Non et he le ss , th e jud gm en t en te redag ai ns t h er i m po se d 2 0- y ear t erm s fo r al l fi ve
cas es refe ren cedin he r pl ea. InJu ne 20 07 , Duh art e so ug htst at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef. At an Octo be r 1, 20 07 he ari ng on he r po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on , th e tr ia l co ur t ag reedth atrel ie f was
warra nt ed , exp la in in g: Whe n th e de fen da nt acce pt ed th e gl ob al pl ea fo r [al l fiv e vi ol at io ns ], th e reco r d r e f

le ct s th e in te nd ed pl ea de fen da nt was ag reei ng to was a 20 y ear se nt en ce on [th e 20 06 co nv ic t i o n s ] as a Hab itua l Offen de r, in ex ch an ge fo r he r ad m is si on s to he r [p ro ba ti on vi ol at io ns ], an d he r gu il ty pl eas to [th e 20 06 co nv ic ti on s].
. . . The fact th at th e twen t y -y ear se nt en ce ap pl ie d on ly to th e two subs ta nt iv e cas es is ap pa ren t fro m th e reco rd si nc e th e on ly cas es in whi ch de fen d a n t c o u ld ha ve be en se nt en ced to as an Hab itua l Off e n d e r w ere th e two subs ta nt iv e cas es . . . . Howev er, be cau se th ere were a nu m be r of ch arg es a l l ran gi ng fro m th ird de gr ee fel on ie s to fir st de gr ee fel on ie s, an d th e pl ea co ll oq uy di d no t ad dr es s each ch arg e in di vi du al ly, in st ead it ad dr es se d
2th e cas es as a who le , th e cl erk ’s of fic e in pu tt ed th e se nt en ce as a who le an d se nt en ced th e de fen da nt to 20 y ears in St at e pr is on on al l ch arg es on al l cas es . Co ns eque nt ly, de fen da nt was se nt en ced to 20 y ears in s t at e pr is on o n t h ird de gr ee fel on ie s. The de fen da nt is co rrec t in he r al le ga ti on s th at a twen ty-y ear se nt en ce on a th ird de gr ee f e l o n y is an il le ga l se nt en ce. Thu s, th e de fen da nt ’s th ird gr ou nd fo r rel ie f is gr an te d, an d t he de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e is va cat edan d re se t fo r se nt en ci ng . Bas edon th is , th e co urt en te redanord er v acat in g Du ha rte ’s sen te nc es . Duh art e was th en res en te nc eddu rin g t hi s s am e Oct ob er 1 stpro ceed in g. The reco rdrev eal s t ha t, dur in g t he res en te nc in g, t he Sta te Att orne y st ip ul at edth at Duh art e’s or ig in al habi tu al de te rm in at io n was pre di cat edup on a no w-v acat ed
co nv ic ti on . The St at e Att orne y ex pl ai ne d: On [th e 20 06 co nv ic ti on s], th e de fen da nt was se nt en ced to 20 y ears st at e pr is on as an H.O. [(Hab itua l Offen de r)]. Sh e was se nt en ced acco rd in g to he r pr e di cat es . Howev er, on e of he r pr ed ic at es th at m ad e th e cri m e wit hi n th e fiv e y ears ha s si nc e be en va cat ed
. The se nt en ce on th at cas e was va cat ed so th e st at e ne ed [s ] to res en te nc e he r wit h pr ed ic at es – th at wil l s ti ll habi tu al iz e h er. The tri al co urt t he n c on su lt edwit h Du ha rte reg ard in g t he st atus of t hr ee
co nv ic ti on s i de nt ifi edby the Sta te . The ex ch an ge wentas f ol lo ws: THE COURT: Do y ou ha ve an y of th os e co nv ic ti on s se t as id e by p os t co nv ic ti on or b y

a pa rd on by the go ve rn or ? MS. DUHARTE: The ‘93, on th e ‘93 cas e I ha v e a po st co nv ic ti on m ot io n. THE STATE ATTORNEY: The co nv ic ti on was no t va cat ed
. It was on th e se nt en ce.
3THE COURT: So th e co nv ic ti o n st il l st oo d. Oth er th an th at , do y ou

ha ve an y pro of -- MS. DUHARTE: No
. THE COURT: Whe n was th e n ot ic e fi le d i n t hi s ca se ? THE STATE ATTORNEY: The no ti ce on th e F0 5- 27 18 6 a n d F 0 5- 27 18 5 was fil ed Sep te m

be r 14 , 20 05
. I kn ow sh e was no ti fie d of it
. Sh e ad mi t t e d t o rece iv in g no ti ce at th e la st pl ea. I’m lo ok in g th ro ug h th e co urt fi le to see whatth e actua l n ot ic e was . THE COURT: Whe n we wen t th ro ug h th e pl ea co ll oq uy it was th e sa m e no ti ce. I fin d by th e pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt was pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d of t w o fel on ie s, th e da te s, th e cas e nu m be rs , th e se nt en ce was an no un ceda few m om en ts ag o. The co urt fin d[ s] th at th e fel on y fo r whi ch th e de fen da nt is be in g se nt en ced , a re no t on e of th e two pr io r fel on ie s, are no t in vi ol at io n of rel at in g t o p os se ss io n o f co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e. The co urt fin ds th at th e de fen da nt ha s of fere d no pr oo f th at an y of th e p r i o r co nv ic ti on s were se t as id e by p os t co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs or by a pa rd on fro m

th e g ov ern or , th eref

or e, sh e can be se nt en ced as a habi tu al fel on y

off en de r fo r th atcas e as well
. The co urt the n e nt eredanord er i nc orrect ly stat in g t ha t Du ha rte ha d re cei ve d t he be ne fitof c ou ns el at r es en te nc in g, an d re im po se d t he pri orhabi tu al off en de r 20

- y ear s en te nc es . Duh art e ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f he r ot he r habe as cla im s, an d a dd eda cl ai m th atth e tr ia l co urt erredin fai li ng to ap po in t co un se l fo r th e h eari ng on he r po st
co nv ic ti on m ot io ns . The Fl or id a Thi rdDis tri ctCo ur t o f App eal s s umm ari ly

4affi rm ed
.

Duh art e th en fil edth ree p et it io ns forrel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 i n t he So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a, whi ch were i n turn a ll ot te d t o t wo s ep arat e d is tri ct jud ge s. Du ha rte arg ue d i n e ach pe ti ti on th at , in te r al ia , th e st at e tr ia l ju dg e de pr iv edhe r of

he r Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el when itrefu se d t o p ro vi de he r co un se l athe r res en te nc in g. The fir stdi st ric t ju dg e d en ie d t wo o f th e p et it io ns , con cl ud in g tha t Duh art e’s res en te nc in g re su lt edin m ere m in is te ria l co rrec ti on s fo r whi ch sh e was
no t en ti tl edto co un se l. The sec on d ju dg e, ho wev er, g ran te d re li ef, ex pl ic it ly reject in g t he co nc lu si on th atth e res en te nc in g was a m in is te ria l co rrec ti on . Both pa rti es ap pe al ed , res pe ct iv el y , andwe no w di sp os e o f bo th ap pe al s i n thi s
co ns ol id at edop in io n. A di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o r de ni al of ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on is rev ie wedde
no vo . W ardv. Hal l, 5 92 F.3d11 44 , 11 55 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Becaus e Duh art e fi le d he r fed eral pe ti ti on aft er Ap ril 24 , 19 96 , th is cas e is go ve rn edby 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4, as am en de d b y

th e Ant i-Te rro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h Actof 1 99 6. Se e Hen de rs on v. Ca m

pb el l, 3 53 F.3d88 0, 8 89 –9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) , we can no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f to a cl ai m ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in st at e co urt u nl es s the st at e co urt’s re so lu ti on of t he cla im :
5(1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , o r in vo lv ed an

u n r eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es tabl is he d Fed eral la w, a s de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba se d on an un reas on ab l e de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e co urt p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Thu s, i n t hi s ca se , we m us t d et erm in e whe th er t he st at e
co urt’s co nc lu si on th atpe ti ti on er was no t en ti tl edto co un se l athe r res en te nc in g
was co nt rary to, o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. The Six th Am en dm en t p ro vi de s tha t “ [i]n a ll cri m in al pro se cu ti on s, t he
accu se d s ha ll en

joy th e ri gh t . . . to ha ve th e Ass is ta nc e o f Co un se l fo r hi s de fen ce.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. Anin di ge ntde fen da ntwho can no t af fo rdan at to rn ey ha s an ab so lu te rig htto ha ve co un se l ap po in te d b y th e co ur t. Gid eo n v . W ai nwr ig ht , 37 2 U.S. 3 35 , 34 2– 44 , 83 S. Ct. 7 92 , 79 5– 97 (19 63 ). The ri gh t t o
co un se l at ta ch es in a cri m in al pro se cu ti on aft er t he in it ia ti on of a dv ers ari al jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs , Kirb y

v. Il li no is , 40 6 U.S. 6 82 , 68 9– 90 , 92 S. Ct. 1 87 7, 1 88 2 (1 97 2) , an d c on ti nu es th ro ug h t he fir st -ti er o f no n- di sc ret io na ry di rectap pe al , if t he st at e pr ov id es anap pe al as am at te r of rig ht . Pen so n v . Ohi o, 4 88 U.S. 75 , 88 , 10 9 S
. Ct . 34 6, 3 54 (19 88 ). Duh art e’s ri gh t t o c ou ns el is de te rm in edby whe th er h er re se nt en ci ng
co ns ti tu te d a“ cri ti cal st ag e” i n h er p ro ceed in gs . As th e Supr em e Co ur t h as 6ex pl ai ne d, “ [o ]nce at ta ch m en t o ccu rs , th e acc us edat l eas t i s en ti tl edto th e

pr es en ce o f ap po in te d c ou ns el du rin g a ny ‘ cri ti cal st ag e’ of th e p os ta tt ach m en t pr oc eed in gs ; wh atm ak es a st ag e cri ti cal is whatsh ows th e n eedfor co un se l's pr es en ce.” Ro th ge ry

v. Gi ll es pi e Cn ty., Tex., 5 54 U.S. 19 1, 2 12 , 12 8 S . Ct. 2 57 8, 25 91 (20 08 ). Sup rem e Co urt p rece de nt s “ ha ve de fin edcri ti cal st ag es as pr oc eed in gs be twee n a n i nd iv idua l an d a ge nt s o f th e St at e (wh ethe r ‘form al or in fo rm al , in co urt o r ou t,’ th atam ou ntto ‘ tri al -li ke co nf ro nt at io ns ,’ at wh ic h
co un se l wo ul d h el p t he accu se d ‘in co pi ng wit h l eg al pro bl em s o r . . . m eet in g h is ad ve rs ary. ’” Id. at n .16 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . Ind eed , “ [e]ven th ou gh th e de fen da ntha s n o s ub st an ti ve rig htto a pa rti cu lar se nt en ce wi th in th e ran ge
au th or iz edby stat ut e, th e se nt en ci ng is a cri ti cal st ag e o f th e cri m in al pro ceed in g atwhi ch he is en ti tl edto th e eff ect iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l.” Gar dn er v . Flo rid a 43 0 U.S. 3 49 , 35 8, 9 7 S . Ct. 1 19 7, 1 20 4– 05 (19 77 ) (ci ti ng Mem pav. Rh ay , 38 9 U.S. 12 8, 8 8 S . Ct. 2 54 (19 67 ); S pe ch t v . Pat te rs on , 38 6 U.S. 6 05 , 87 S. Ct. 1 20 9 (1 96 7) ). App lying th is st an da rd , we ho ldth atDuh art e’s res en te nc in g was a “ cri ti cal st ag e” i n h er p ro ceed in gs , andth eref or e co un se l s ho ul d h av e b een ap po in te d. As th e co ll oq uy from

Duh art e’s res en te nc in g d em on st rat es , th e tr ia l co ur t d idno t
m erel y pe rfo rm a m in is te ria l ac t o f va cat in g a ndres en te nc in g h er o n h er i ll eg al
7pr ob at io na ry sen te nc es . Ins te ad , th e tr ia l co urt m ad e a fi nd in g o f fac t tha t o ne of Duh art e’s pr io r pr ed ic at e fel on ie s—whi ch ha d b een us edto qu al ify her fo r an
en ha nc edhabi tu al fel on y off en de r se nt en ce o n h er 2 00 6 c on vi ct io ns —h adbe en
va cat ed . As a res ul t, b efo re the tri al co ur t co ul d “ reh ab itua li ze” Du ha rte , itne ed ed to ex erci se di sc ret io n, ju dg m en t, an d s ki ll to de te rm in e th atan ot he r of he r pr io r
co nv ic ti on s co ul d s erv e as a qu al ifyin g o ffen se . This requi redin qu iry int o t he st atus of Du ha rte ’s cri m in al hi st ory an d m ak in g ane w fin di ng of f actth atot he r pr ed ic at e o ffen se s wer e st il l v al idto qu al ify as h ab itua l o ffen de r pr ed ic at es . W e th in k i t b ey on d p erad ve ntur e th atth e ad ve rs e an d fa ct -fi nd in g n atur e o f th is in qu iry pla in ly rend ers ita “pr oc eed in g[ ] be twee n a n i nd iv idua l an d a ge nt s o f th e St at e . . . at whi ch co un se l wo ul d h el p t he accu se d ‘in co pi ng with l eg al pro bl em s
or. . . m eet in g [h er] adv ers ary. ’” Ro th ge ry , 55 4 U.S. at21 2 n .16 , 12 8 S . Ct. at 25 91 n.1 6. In de ed , th is is esp eci al ly true in th is cas e, whe re the sen te nc in g J ud ge ta sk edDuh art e wit h a rg ui ng whet he r on e o f he r pr io r co nv ic ti on s was st il l v al id , an d u lt im at el y

di sm is se d h er ar gu m en ts forwantof e vi de nc e, an d t he n
res en te nc edhe r as a habi tu al fel on y off en de r. Und er cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law, Du ha rte was t hu s en ti tl edto co un se l athe r res en te nc in g. Ro th ge ry , 55 4 U.S. at21 2, 1 28 S. Ct. at25 91 ; s ee Gard ne r, 43 0 U.S. at35 8, 9 7 S . Ct. at12 05 . Furt he rm or e, we pr es um e Dua rte was 8pr ejud ic ed . As th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d i n S tri ck la ndv. Wash in gt on , 46 6 U.S.

66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) , th e “ [a]ctu al
. . . de ni al of t he ass is ta nc e o f co un se l al to ge th er i s l eg al ly pres um edto res ul t i n p reju di ce.” Id . at 6 92 , 10 4 S . Ct. at 20 67 ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. 6 48 , 65 9, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 03 9, 2 04 7 (1 98 4) (“ The pre su m

pt io n t ha t co un se l’s as si st an ce i s es se nt ia l re qu ire s u s t o
co nc lu de th ata tr ia l i s u nf ai r if th e acc us edis de ni edco un se l ata cri ti cal st ag e o f hi s t ria l.”) . In t hi s ca se , th e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt’s fa il ur e to ap po in t Duh art e co un se l “ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry to
. . . cl earl y

est ab li sh ed Fed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 45 4( d) (1 ). W e th eref

or e aff irm th e g ran t o f Duh art e’s habe as pe ti ti on in Cas e No. 0 9- 13 78 3, REVERS E th e d en ia l o f he r pe ti ti on s i n C as es No. 0 9- 11 32 2 a nd 09 -1 15 39 , andREMAND fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwit h t hi s o pi ni on . Cas e No. 0 9- 13 78 3 AFFIRME D; Cas e Nos . 09 -1 13 22 an d 0 9- 11 53 9 REVERSED a nd REMANDED.

9