FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JULY 27, 2007 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. 06- 15061 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 64 -C V -B A E -4 T E X A C O T E M P L E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A R D E N C A L V I N M O R T O N , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L T H U R B E R T B A K E R , 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 27, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an dC A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

T e xa c o T e m pl e , aG e or gi apr i s one r , f i l e d apr o s e pe t i t i on, pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254, c ha l l e ngi ng hi s s t a t e c onvi c t i ons f ora ggr a va t e d a s s aul ta nd pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm byac onvi c t e d f

e l on. I n hi s pe t i t i on, T e m pl e m a de va r i ous c la im s r e la tin g to h is tr ia l c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to in tr o d u c e ag u n s h o t r e s id u e a n a ly s is thati nd i ca t ed thatT em pl e di d n othave gu nsho tre si du e on h i s hands w hen h e w as te s te dim m e d ia te lyf

o llo w in g th e in c id e n t th a t r e s u lte din h is c o n v ic tio n . T h is C o u rt g r a n te d ac e rtif

ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility( “C O A ” ) a s to “( 1 ) W h e th e rth e r e s u lts of the f i r e a rm s r e s i due a na l y s i s w e r e ‘ pr e s e nt e d i n the S t a t e c ourtpr oc e e di ng’ un der § 22 54 (d)( 2); (2) I f s o, w hether the di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng thattri al c o u n s e l w a s n o ti n e f

f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o i n tr o d u c e th e r e s u l t s o f th e f i r e a rms re si du e anal ys i s a ttri al ; and (3) W hether app el l ant ’ s app el l at e c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o cal l tri al coun se l t o t es t i fyatthe m ot i on for new tri al h e a r in g .”

“ W hen revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a habeas pet i t i on , w e r evi ew qu es t i on s of l aw and m i xed q uest i on s of l aw and factde no vo , and fi nd i ng s of f ac t f o rc l e a re rr o r . ” Ny l a n d v . Mo o r e , 2 1 6 F . 3 d1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . As a m e nde d bythe A E D P A , 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) f orbi ds f e de r a l c ourt s f

r om gr a nt i ng h ab e a s r e lie f

o n c la im s th a t w e r e p r e v io u s lya d ju d ic a te do n th e m e r its in s ta te c ourt , unl e s s the a dj udi c a t i on3

(1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as de t e rm i ne d bythe S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; 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 do 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 t a t e c ourtpr oc e e di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . “[ A ] f e d e r a l h ab e a s c o u rt m a k in g th e ‘u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ’ in q u irys h o u lda s kw h e th e rth e s ta te c o u rt’s ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d l a w w a s obj e c t i ve l yunr e a s onabl e . ” W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U . S . 362, 409, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1521 ( 2000) . F urthe rm or e , w e ha ve s t a t e d tha t“ [ i ] ti s the obj ec t i ve re as on abl enes s, no tthe corre ctness per s e, of the st at e c ou rtdeci si on that w e a r e to d e c id e .” B r o w n v . H e a d , 2 7 2 F .3 d1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . R e ga r di ng f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs , 28 U . S . C . § 2254( e ) ( 1) pr ovi de s tha t“ ade t e rm i na t i on of af a c tua l i s s ue m a de byaS t a t e c ourts ha l l be pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t . T he appl i cantshal l have the bu rden of rebutt i ng the pres um pt i on of corr ec tness by cl ear and con vi nci ng evi dence. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (1). T h e U n i t edS t at es C o n st i tu t i o n p ro v i d es th at“ [i ] n al l cri m i n al p ro secu t i o n s, th e a c c u s e d s h a ll e n

jo yth e r ig h t . . . to h a v e th e A s s is ta n c e o f C o u n s e l f

o rh is de f e ns e . ” U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V I . T he be nc hm a rk f orj udgi ng ac l a i m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l i s w hether c ou nsel ’ s per form ance so un derm i ned the prop erfunct i on i ng of the adversari al proces s thatthe tri al cann otbe re l i ed on as ha vi ng pr oduc e d aj us tr e s ul t . S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 686, 1044

S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T o m a k e s u c h as h o wi n g , ap r i s o n e rm u s tp r o v e two th in g s. Id . at 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. at 2 0 6 4 . F irst, th e p riso n erm u st sh o w th at co u n se l’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt . S e c ond, the pr i s one rm us te s t abl i s h tha tthe de f i c i e nt pe r f orm a nc e pr e

j udi c e d the de f

e ns e . I d. “ C ouns e l ’ s c om pe t e nc e . . . i s pr e s um e d, an dth e d ef

en d an t m u st re b u t th is p re su m p ti o n b y p ro v in g th at h is atto rn ey ’s r e pr e s e nt a t i on w a s unr e a s onabl e unde rpr e va i l i ng pr of e s s i ona l norm s a nd tha tthe c h a l l e n g e da c t i o n w a s n o ts o u n d s tr a t e g y . ” K i mme l ma n v . M o rr i s o n , 4 7 7 U . S. 365, 384, 106 S . C t . 2574, 2588 ( 1986) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he r e i s as tr ong pres um pt i on thatcoun se l ’ s c on du ctfe l l w i thi n the rang e of r ea sonabl e profes si on al a s s is ta n c e . S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . I f th e r e c o r dis i ncom pl et e or uncl ear abo utcoun se l ’ s a ct i on s, then i ti s pre sum ed thatcoun se l e xe r c i s e d r e a s onabl e pr of e s s i ona l j udgm e nt . C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 14 n. 15 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc).

A . Inef fe ct i ve A ss i st ance of T ri al C ou nsel T h e g u n s h o t r e s id u e a n a ly s is d o e s n o t ap p e a rin th e s ta te c o u rt r e c o r d s u n til i tw as “ proffe re d, ” but“ no tadm i tt ed as evi dence, ” a ft erthe st at e c ou rthad det erm i ned thatT em pl e’ s s ec on d h abea s pet i t i on w as t o b e di sm i ss ed as s u c c e s s iv e . T h is p r o f

f e ro f th e g u n s h o t r e s id u e a n a ly s is is in s u f f ic ie n t b e c au s e it oc c urr e d a f

t e rthe di r e c tappe a l a nd f i r s thabe a s c ourt s ha d a l r e a dya ddr e s s e d the5

c l a i m , a nd, the r e f

or e , T e m pl e di d notpr e s e ntthe guns hotr e s i due a na l y s i s i n a ny proceedi ng w here the st at e c ou rtaddres se d the m er i t s of T em pl e’ s i neff ec t i vea s s i s t a nc e - of

- tr i a l - c ouns e l c l a i m . S e e 28 § 2254( d) ( 2) . T e m pl e ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr e s e nt th e g u n s h o t r e s id u e a n a ly s is m a d e it r e a s o n ab le f o rth e G e o r g iaC o u rt o f A p p e a ls t o c onc l ude tha tT e m pl e ha d f a i l e d t o s how tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l ha d a c c e s s t o, but f a ile dto p r e s e n t, th e g u n s h o t r e s id u e a n a ly s is . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . T h e r e f o r e , it w a s r e a s o n ab le f

o rth e G e o r g iaC o u rt o f A p p e a ls to h o ldth a t T e m p le f a ile dto s h o w th a t h is c o u n s e l h a db e e n d e f ic ie n t. S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . A cc ordi ng l y, w e w i l l no tdi sturb the G eorgi a C ou rtof A pp ea l s’ s f i nd i ng that T e m pl e ’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

tr i a l c ouns e l c l a i m f

a i l e d. S e e i d. ; S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064.

B . Inef fe ct i ve A ss i st ance of A pp el l at e C ou nsel T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s h e ldth a t th e S tr ic k la n da n a ly s is a ls o ap p lie s to c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

appe l l a t e c ouns e l . S m i th, 528 U . S . a t287- 88, 1 2 0 S .C t. a t 7 6 5 . I n a d d itio n , w e h a v e s ta te dth a t “[ w ]h ic h w itn e s s e s , if a n y , to ca l l , and w hen t o cal l them , i s the epi t om e of astra t egi c dec i si on , and i ti s one that w e w i l l s e l dom , i f

e ve r , s e c ond gue s s . ” S e e W a t e r s v. T hom a s , 46 F . 3d 1506, 1512 (11th C i r. 19 95 ).6

T h e s ta te c o u rt r e v ie w in g T e m p le ’s f ir s t h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g r e a s o n ab ly f o u n dth a t T e m p le f

a ile d to s h o w th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . T e m pl e ’ s appe l l a t e c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d as tr a t e gi c r e a s on f ornotc a l l i ng T e m p le ’s tr ia l c o u n s e l to te s tif ya t th e m o tio n f

o ran e w tr ia l. H o w e v e r , T e m p le d idn o t c r o s s - e x a m in e h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l o rp r e s e n t a n ye v id e n c e th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l’s a c tio n s w e r e n o t s o u n ds tr a te g y . T h e r e f o r e , T e m p le f

a ile dto s how tha thi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on w a s unr e a s onabl e a nd di d notc ons t i tut e s ound stra t egy. A cc ordi ng l y, i tw as re as on abl e f or the st at e c ou rtt o fi nd thatT em pl e had fa i l ed t o sho w thathi s app el l at e c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve. S ee § 2 25 4(d)(1); K i m m el m an, 47 7 U . S . at38 4, 10 6 S . C t . at25 88 ; se e a l so S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S .C t. at 2 0 6 5 . T h u s, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f T em p le’s § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. AF F I RME D.