FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 20, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 12201 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 8 7 - CV - J - 3 2 - M CR R I C K E Y E D W A R D F I L L M O R E , a .k .a . J o h n n y L e s lie S im m o n s , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S H E R I F F N E I L P E R R Y , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , S T A T E O F F L O R I D 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 20, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R i c ke y E dw a r d F i l l m or e , aF l or i dapr i s one r , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on. T he A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 1 0 4 - 3 2 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , g o v e rn s th is ap p e a l b e c a u s e F illm o r e f ile d h is m o tio n a f

te rth e A E D P A ’s e f

f e c tiv e d a te . W e g r a n te d ac e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility sol el y on the fol l ow i ng qu es t i on : w hether the di stri ctcourt , base d o n the re cord before i t , erre d i n d enyi ng appel l ant ’ s c l ai m thathi s s t at e c ou rtgu i l ty pl eaw as in v o lu n ta ry . O n app ea l , F i l l m ore a rgues thatthe st at e c i rc ui tcourtpart i ci pat ed i n h i s pl ea n e g o tia tio n b y s ta tin g th a t it w o u ld r e c o m m e n d th a t F illm o r e s e rv e h is p r o b a tio n in Indi ana a nd , because of the court ’ s part i ci pat i on and p rom i se , F i l l m ore w as in d u c e d to p le a d g u ilty . F illm o r e f u r th e rc o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is in v o lu n ta ry p le ac la im w ith o u t r e v ie w in g th e tr a n s c r ip t f r o m th e s ta te c our tpl e ahe a r i ng a nd i n f a i l i ng t o c om pe l the S t a t e t o s ubm i tthe tr a ns c r i ptt o the courtfor r evi ew . H e a l so m ai nt ai ns thatthe tra nscr i pti s c ruci al t o the di stri ct c our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha the w a s gi ve n af ul l a nd f a i rhe a r i ng i n the s t a t e c our ta nd w hether the st at e c ou rt ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the pl eahear i ng re sul t ed i n an i nv ol un t ary p le a . W hen revi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a § 22 54 pet i t i on , w e r evi ew3

“q u e s tio n s o f

la w a n d m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f la w a n d f

a c t de no vo , and fi nd i ng s of f ac t for c l ea r e rr or. ” L e Cr oy v . Se c ’ y, Fla. D e

p’ t of C or r e c t i ons , 421 F . 3d 1237, 1259 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . M or e ove r , “ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of w he the rthe s t a t e c our tde c i s i on w a s r e a s onabl e . . . i s s ubj e c tt o de nov o re vi ew . ” Id . (i nt ernal q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A § 2 25 4 p et i t i on shal l no tbe grant ed un l es s a“ cl ai m thatw as adj ud i ca t ed o n th e m e r its ” b y th e s ta te c o u r t: (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es ; or ( 2 ) r e s u lte d in ad e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n 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 i n the S ta te c o u rt p r o c e e d in g . 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) . I n a§ 2254 pr oc e e di ng, “ ade t e rm i na t i on of af a c tua l i s s ue m a de by aS t a t e c our ts ha l l be pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t . T he appl i c a nts ha l l ha ve the bur de n of

r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of c orr e c tne s s by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( e ) ( 1) . F ur the r , “ [ a ] pe t i t i one rha s the bur de n of e s tab lis h in g h is r ig h t to f e d e r a l h ab e a s r e lie f

a n d o f p r o v in g a ll f

a c ts n e c e s s a ry to show a c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on . ” R om i ne v . H e ad , 25 3 F . 3d 13 49 , 13 57 (11th C i r. 2001) . R ul e 5 of

the rul e s gove rni ng § 2254 c a s e s , how e ve r , r e qui r e s tha tthe S t a t e ’ s a ns w e rt o the pe t i t i on c ont a i n the f ol l ow i ng: w ha ttr a ns c r i pt s ( of

pr e tr i a l , tr i a l , s e nt e nc i ng, orpos t - c onvi c t i on4

proceedi ng s) ar e a vai l abl e, w hen they c an be furni shed, and w hat p ro ceed i n g s h av e b een reco rd ed b u tn o ttran scri b ed . T h e [S t at e] m u st att ac h t o the answ erpart s of the tra nscr i ptthatthe [S t at e] consi ders r e l e va nt . T he j udge m a y or de rtha tthe [ S t a t e ] f urni s h othe rpa r t s of e xi s t i ng tr a ns c r i pt s ortha tpa r t s of untr a ns c r i be d r e c or di ngs be tr a ns c r i be d a nd f

urni s he d. I f

atr a ns c r i ptc a nnotbe obt a i ne d, the [ S ta te ] m a y s u b m it an a rr a tiv e s u m m a ry o f th e e v id e n c e . R u le 5 ( c ) , R u le s G o v e rn in g § 2 2 5 4 C a s e s , 2 8 U .S .C . f o ll. § 2 2 5 4 . S u c h tr a n s c r ip ts a r e c ruc i a l be c a us e w i thoutthe m , ape t i t i one rw oul d f i nd i tdi f f i c ul ti f not i m po ss i bl e t o sat i sf

y the st ee p b urden o f bei ng ent i t l ed t o h abea s r el i ef . A s a n in itia l m a tte r , F illm o r e ’s in v o lu n ta ry p le ac la im is n o t p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d b e c a u s e o f

af a ilu r e to e x h a u s t th e c la im in th e s ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s . B a s e d o n alib e r a l c o n s tru c tio n o f F illm o r e ’s p le a d in g s , h e r a is e d h is c la im in h is F l or i daR ul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 3. 850 m ot i on be f or e the s t a t e c i r c ui tc our ta nd the F i fth D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l (“ D C A ”) , and i n h i s pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas c o rp u s i n th e DC A. A s t o the m e r i t s of

F i l l m or e ’ s c l a i m , F i l l m or e be a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng th e f a c ts th a t e s tab lis h ac o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n a n d h is r ig h t to h ab e a s r e lie f . See R om i ne , 2 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 7 ( e x p la in in g th a t w h e r e “th e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t c le a r ly e xpl a i n w ha thappe ne d, orm or e a c c ur a t e l y w hy s om e thi ng f a i l e d t o happe n, the pa r ty w i th the bur de n l os e s ” ) . H ow e ve r , unde rR ul e 5 of the rul e s gove rni ng § 2254 c a s e s , the S t a t e m us tpr ovi de , a nd i ndi c a t e the a va i l abi l i ty of , a ny r e l e va nt5

tr a n s c r ip ts , a n d , if

s u c h tr a n s c r ip ts a r e n o t a v a ilab le , th e S ta te m a y s u b m it a na rr a t i ve s um m a ry of

the e vi de nc e . R ul e 5( c ) , R ul e s G ove rni ng § 2254 C a s e s , 28 U . S . C . f ol l . § 2254. T he S t a t e f a i l e d t o pr ovi de ori ndi c a t e the a va i l abi l i ty of the tr a n s c r ip t f

r o m F illm o r e ’s p le ah e a r in g in its r e s p o n s e to F illm o r e ’s p e titio n . W i tho utre ce i vi ng such a tra nscr i ptor narr at i ve, F i l l m ore w as no taf forded an oppor tuni ty t o m e e thi s bur de n w i th r e ga r ds t o ove r c om i ng the pr e s um pt i on of corr ec tness of the st at e c ou rt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt i napp ropri at el y app l i ed thi s pre sum pt i on of corr ec tness re gardi ng w hether F i l l m or e ’ s pl e aw a s vol unt a ry w i thoutF i l l m or e ha vi ng a c c e s s t o a l l of the in f o rm a tio n g u a r a n te e d u n d e rR u le 5 a n d n e e d e d to r e b u t th is p r e s u m p tio n . C f. W i l son v. C oo ke , 81 4 F . 2d 61 4, 61 5 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ) ( per c uri am ) ( di stri ctcourt c oul d notr e l y on m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on r e ga r di ng habe a s pe t i t i on w he n the m agi stra t e di d n otm ee ti t s obl i gat i on t o furni sh a tra nscr i ptof the evi dent i ary he a r i ng tha tw a s the ba s i s f orthe r e c om m e nda t i on) . A ddi t i ona l l y , w e c a nnotgi ve ap p r o p r ia te ap p e lla te r e v ie w w ith o u t e ith e ratr a n s c r ip t o rn a rr a tiv e o n th e r e c o r d . Se e i d. A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tw i th i ns truc t i ons f or the courtt o requi re the S t at e t o com pl y w i th R ul e 5 and t o d et erm i ne w hether a tr a ns c r i ptof

F i l l m or e ’ s pl e ahe a r i ng e xi s t s orar e c or di ng of i ti s a va i l abl e f

or tr a n s c r ip tio n . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.