FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 29, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 15 86 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 21 56 6- CV-ASG NOEL DO ORBAL,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W al te r A. McNei l, Se cret ary, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 2 9, 2 00 9) Befo re BI RCH, BLACK an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Thi s ap pe al in vo lv es a sp ree o f m ur de r an d m ayhe m

so he in ou s an d b iz arre th aton e wou ldex pe ctto see iton ly in a c rime dram a o n t el ev is io n, b utth e o nl y is su e o f la w pre se nt edby thi s ap pe al bo rd ers on fri vo lo us . Noel Doo rb al was se nt en cedto de ath i n F lo rid a fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on s o f arm edrob be ry , rack et eeri ng , arm edki dn ap pi ng , firs t-d eg ree a rs on , gra ndth eft , bu rg la ry of a dwe ll in g, an d m

ur de r. Doo rb al ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is pe ti ti on fora writof habe as co rp us . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t Do orba l’s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l was ba rredfro m fed eral rev ie w bec au se th e Supr em e Co urt of Flo rid a h adap pl ie d ast at e ru le of p ro cedur e to refu se to ad jud ic at e h is cla im

on co ll at eral rev ie w. Becau se th atpro cedur al rul e was anad equa te an d i nd ep en de nt gr ou ndun de r st at e la w for refu si ng to ad

jud ic at e Doo rb al ’s cla im , we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND W e d iv id e o urdi sc us si on of t he ba ck gr ou ndin two pa rts . W e fi rs t d is cu ss Doo rb al ’s cri m es . W e th en di sc us s t he pro cedur al hi st ory of Do orba l’s ap pe al s i n st at e an d fe de ral co urt. A. Door ba l’s Cr ime S pr ee Doo rb al ’s con vi ct io ns st emm edfro m ex to rti on pl ot s ai m edat t wo in di vi du al s: Marc Sch il le r an d F ran k Gri ga . In 1 99 4, M arc S ch il le r, a weal th y bu si ne ss m an in Mi am i, h ire d J or ge Delg ad o t o wo rkfor hi s co m pa ny, whi ch 2pr ov id edservi ces rei m bu rs edby Medi care . Doo rb al v. St at e (Do orba l II ), 98 3 So .2d46 4, 4 69 (Fl a. 20 08 ). Delg ad o l at er p ur ch as edth e p orti onof t he bu si ne ss th atrece iv edMed ic are r ei m bu rs em en ts . Id. In Octo be r 19 94 , Dani el Lug o, a fri en d o f Del ga do who oft en pe rfo rm edth e b il li ng for th e Me di care bu si ne ss , co nv in cedDelg ad o t ha t Sc hi ll er h adch eat edth em ou t o f m on ey

th ey were o wed in co nn ect io n wi th th e b us in es s. Id . Delg ad o a sk edLug o t o d o wh at ev er was ne ces sa ry to reco ve r th e m on ey

du e th em . Id. Lug o c on ta ct edDoo rb al an d t wo ot he r in di vi du al s an d d ev is eda pl otto ki dn ap Sch il le r an d fo rce h im to si gnov er hi s as se ts to set tl e th e al le ge d d eb t. Id . at 4 69 –7 0. On No ve m

be r 15 , 19 94 , Doo rb al an d h is acco m pl ic es ab du ct edSch il le r by sh oc ki ng hi m

wit h astun gu n a ndfor ci ng hi m in to a van. Id . at 4 70 . The ki dn ap pe rs ha nd cu ffedan d b li nd fo ld edSch il le r an d t oo k h im to a wareh ou se at gu np oi nt . Id. Lug o, Do orba l, an d t he ot he r ki dn ap pe rs de m an de d S ch il le r m ak e a li stof h is ass et s, an d wh en he refu se d, t he y sl ap pe d h im , sh oc ke d h im wit h astun gu n, an d b eathi m

with afir earm . Id. Whenhe co nt in ue d t o re fu se to li sthi s as se ts , th ey

th reat en edhi m

wit h aga m e o f Ru ss ia n R ou le tt e an d t hr eat en edto ab du cthi s wi fe an d rape he r in hi s p res en ce. Id
. Sch il le r ev en tu al ly agree d t o c om pl y wit h the de m an ds of h is cap to rs if h is wife an d c hi ld ren were al lo wedto lea ve th e co un try un ha rm ed . Id. Ov er t he 3fo ll owi ng da y s, Sc hi ll er s ig ne d aqu it cl ai m de edfor hi s h om e an d v ari ou s do cu m en ts th atgra nt edacce ss to hi s ch eck in g, s av in gs , andIRA acc ou nt s, an d h e ch an ge d t he be ne fic iarie s o n h is in su ran ce p ol ic ie s, wh ic h wer e worth m il li on s o f do ll ars . Id. Whil e th e k idnapp ers he ldSch il le r cap ti ve , Doo rb al an d Lu go wentto Sch il le r’s ho m e an d re m ov edfurni sh in gs an d o th er i te m s. Id . Doo rb al an d t he ot he rs us edSch il le r’s cred itcard s t o c ha rg e th ou sa nd s o f do ll ars in ex pe ns es . Id. The ki dn ap pe rs als o s to le m on ey fro m Sch il le r’s ho m e sa fe. Id
. Afte r th ree wee ks , Delg ad o a ndDoo rb al co nv in cedLug o t ha t Sc hi ll er co ul d li ke ly ide nt ify his ki dn ap pe rs an d s ho ul d b e k il le d. Id . They fo rcedSch il le r to dr in k a lc oh ol , dro ve hi s v eh ic le in to a ut il it y po le on a Mi am i s tre et , andpl aced Sch il le r in th e fro ntsea t o f th e v eh ic le so th atitwou ldap pe ar t ha t h e h adbe en in vo lv edina drun k d riv in g a cci de nt . Id. Do orba l an d Lu go th enpo ur edga so li ne on th e v eh ic le an d s etitonfir e. Id
. Sch il le r es cap edth e v eh ic le an d was st ag ge rin g i n t he roa dwa y when Doo rb al an d Lu go pe rs ua de d a no th er k id napp er t o d riv e a car ov er Sc hi ll er. Id
. Doo rb al an d t he ot he r ki dn ap pe rs th en fle d t he sce ne . Id. Sch il le r su rv iv edan d
was tak en to a Mi am i h os pi ta l, wh ere h e rec ei ve d t reat m en t fo r a b ro ke n p el vi s, ruptur edbl ad de r, brui se s an d b urns , andtem po rary paral y si s. Id . at 4 70 –7 1. Whe n t he ki dn ap pe rs lea rn edth atSch il le r ha d s urvi ve d t he att ack , th ey 4vi si te d t he Mi am i h os pi ta l wi th th e in te ntto su ffo cat e Sch il le r wit h api ll ow. Id . at

47 1. Sc hi ll er was no t atth e h os pi ta l b ecau se , bas edon fear s fo r hi s s afet y , he h ad
arra ng edto be air li fte d t o aNew Yorkho sp it al . Id. Aft er t he y di sc ov eredth at Sch il le r was no lo ng er i n M ia m i, Do orba l an d t he othe rs ran sa ck edSch il le r’s ho m e an d p il la ge d t he rem ai nd er o f Sch il le r’s fu rn is hi ng s an d v al uabl es , bu t Doo rb al ’s cri m e sp ree d idno t en d t he re. Id
. In19 95 , Doo rb al lea rn edfro m hi s g irl fri en d abo utFran k Gri ga , a weal th y Mi am i b us in es sm an , andbe cam e “ en th ral le d” wit h Gri ga ’s wealt h a nd po ss es si on s, i nc lu di ng a y el lo w Lam bo rg hi ni car. Do orba l v . Sta te (Doo rb al I), 83 7 S o. 2 d 9 40 , 94 8 (F la . 20 03 ). Doo rb al tar ge te d Gri gaforki dn ap pi ng an d
ex to rti on , recru it edLug o, an d a rran ge d abu si ne ss m eet in g wi th Grig a u nd er t he gu is e o f di sc us si ng Grig a’s in te res t i n i nv es ti ng in tel ep ho ne li ne s i n In di a. Id
. Grig a sh owe d l it tl e in te res t, b utDoo rb al an d Lu go pe rs is te d a ndvi si te d Gri ga ’s ho m e twi ce i n M ay

of 1 99 5. Onth e se co ndvi si t, the y in vi te d Gri gato di nn er an d lu redGrig a an d h is gi rlf

rie nd , Kris zt in a Fu rto n, t o Do orba l’s ap art m en t. Id
. The ne xtda y , Delg ad o m etLug o a ndDoo rb al at Do orba l’s ap art m en t, an d Lug o i nf orm edDelg ad o t ha t Do orba l h adki ll edGrig a fo ll owi ng a sc uf fle . Id. at 94 9. Du rin g t he scu ffl e, Fu rto n b eg an to scr eam when sh e rea li zedth atGrig a was in jure d. Id . Lug o s ub du edhe r wit h a n i njec ti on of R om pu n, a h or se tra nq ui li zer, 5ha nd cu ffedhe r, an d Do orba l an d Lu go th en qu es ti on edhe r ab ou t t he sec ur it y co de fo r Grig a’s ho m e. Id . W he n F urto n re fu se d t o a ns wer, Doo rb al in jecte d h er wi th
m or e Ro m

pu n, an d F urto n e ve ntua ll y di ed . Id. Doo rb al an d t he ot he rs th en trans ferr edth e b od ie s t o awareh ou se , wher e th ey di sm em be redth e b od ie s u si ng a ch ai n s aw an d h at ch et . Id. at95 0. Th ey at te m pt edto bu rnth e h ead s, h an ds , andfeetof Gri gaan d F urto n, b utwere un su cces sf

ul . Id. The y

di sp os edof t he bo di es , whi ch were l at er re co ve redan d id en ti fie d. Id . at 9 50 –5 1. B. Proc ed ur al His to ry Doo rb al was a rres te d a nd , at t ria l, was co nv ic te d o f two co un ts of f irs tde gr ee m ur de r, co ns pi racy to c omm itrack et eeri ng , rack et eeri ng , two co un ts of ki dn ap pi ng , arm edki dn ap pi ng , att em pt edex to rti on , two co un ts of g ran d t he ft, at te m pt edfir st -d eg ree m

ur de r, arm edrob be ry , bu rg la ry of adwel li ng , firs t-d eg ree ars on , arm edex to rti on , andco ns pi racy to c omm ita fi rs t-d eg ree f el on y . For e ach
m ur de r, th e jury reco m

m en de d t he de ath p en al ty by a vo te of e ig htto fou r, an d t he tri al co urt s en te nc edDoo rb al to de ath fo r eac h m ur de r. Doo rb al un su cces sf

ul ly rais edsev eral is su es in hi s d ire ctap pe al of h is
co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es , in cl ud in g t he erro ne ou s ad m is si onof c ha ract er ev id en ce. Id . at 9 54 . Doo rb al arg ue d “ th atha rm fu l erro r oc cu rredwhen va rio us 6wit ne ss es forth e St at e m ad e st at em en ts ” ab ou t Do orba l’s b adch arac te r. Id.

Bec au se Doo rb al fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he tes ti m on y at t ria l, t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a rev ie wedth e ad m is si on of t he tes ti m on y un de r th e st an da rdfor

“ fu nd am en ta l erro r, . . . whi ch requi res th atanoff en di ng co m

m en t ‘reach [ ] do wn in to th e v al id it y

of t he tri al it se lf t o t he ex te ntth ata ve rd ic t o f gu il ty or jury
reco m m en da ti on of d eat h c ou ldno t h av e b een ob ta in edwit ho utth e as si st an ce o f th e al le ge d e rro r.’” Id. at95 4– 55 (qu ot in g M cDo na ldv. St at e, 74 3 S o. 2 d 5 01 , 50 5 (F la . 19 99 )). The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t “ do ub t[e d] th e[] rele vanc y ” o f th e st at em en ts , bu t the ir a dm is si on was n otfun da m en ta l erro r be cau se th e co m m en ts were “ rel at iv el y

is ol at ed ” an d o th er ev id en ce o f gu il t was “ ov erwh el m in g.” Id. at 95 6. The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a al so reject edDoo rb al ’s cha ll en ge s t o t he pr os ecu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en ts du rin g t he gu il t an d p en al ty pha se s. Do orba l ch al le ng edarg um en ts by the pro se cu to r in th e g ui ltph as e th atco m m en te d o n Doo rb al ’s rig htto rem ai n s il en t. Id . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co nc lu de d t ha t th e arg um en ts were n otfun da m en ta l erro r be cau se th ey “ di d n otaffe ctth e jury’ s ve rd ic t” inth e li gh t o f th e “ m ag ni tu de of p hysic al an d t es ti m on ia l ev id en ce” o f Doo rb al ’s cri m es . Id. at95 7. Do orba l al so arg ue d t ha t ar gu m en ts by the pr os ecu to r “ vi ol at edth e p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t ‘Gol de n R ul e’ argu m en ts , [whi ch ] 7as ke d ju ro rs to pl ace t he m se lv es in th e p os it io n o f th e v ic ti m .” Id . The co urt

co nc lu de d t ha t, i n t he li gh t o f th e “ m ou nt ai n o f . . . evi de nc e [tha t] est ab li sh ed Doo rb al ’s res po ns ib il it y

forth e cri m es ,” th e rem ark s d idno t “ affe ctth e jury’ s ve rd ic t” an d d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f fu nd am en ta l erro r. Id. Do orba l al so arg ue d t ha t ar gu m en ts by the pro se cu to r du rin g t he pe na lt y ph as e th aturg edth e jury to s ho w “ no m ercy” con st itut edfun da m en ta l erro r, bu t t he co urt d is ag reed
an d s ta te d t ha t, “ whi le erro ne ou s, t he pro se cu to r’s ‘no m ercy’ co m m en ts do no t ris e to th e le ve l o f erro r su chth atth e jury’ s re co m m en da ti on of d eat h c ou ldno t ha ve be en m ad e wit ho utrel ia nc e upo n t he m .” Id . at 9 58 –5 9. Th e Supr em e Co urt of Flo rid a aff

irmed Doo rb al ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . Id. at96 3. Doo rb al th en fil eda m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r Fl or id a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 .85 1 a ndrai se d 2 1 g ro un ds , in cl ud in g acla im of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he pro se cu to r’s im pr op er cl os in g arg um en ts th atwere t he subjec t o f th e d ire ctap pe al . Doo rb al II, 98 3 S o. 2 d a t 4 73 & n .2. The tri al co urt g ran te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on on e cl ai m

th atin vo lv ed tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to ob ta in a m en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on . Id. at47 4. Th e tr ia l
co urt “ de ni edth e o th er cl ai m s as eit he r m eri tl es s, p ro cedur al ly barre d, o r in su ffi ci en tl y

pl ed .” Id
. The tri al co urt re

jecte d Do orba l’s cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l

8ab ou t the fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he clo si ng arg um en ts of t he pro se cu to r. The t ria l

co urt ru le d t ha t t he cla im ab ou t t he pro se cu to r’s arg um en ts du rin g t he gu il t p ha se was for ecl os edbe cau se th e st an da rdforpre jud ic e, un de r St ric kl an d v
. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 69 1– 92 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 2 06 6– 67 (19 84 ),
was th e sa m e as th atforfun da m en ta l erro r an d t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a h ad
ru le d o n d ire ctap pe al th atth e p ro se cu to r’s arg um en ts were n otfun da m en ta l erro r. The co urt al so reject edDoo rb al ’s cla im ab ou t the fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he pr os ecu to r’s “ no m ercy” arg um en t dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e. An ev id en ti ary he ari ng was h el d o n Do orba l’s cl ai m ab ou t co un se l’s fa il ur e to ob ta in a m en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on , bu t Do orba l d ecl in edto pre se ntwit ne ss es . Doo rb al II, 98 3 S o. 2 d a t 4 75 . The t ria l co urt “ co nc lu de d t ha t Do orba l h adfai le d to pro du ce a p rimary

ba si s fo r rel ie f on [th e m en ta l h eal th ] cl ai m . . . an d d en ie d th e cl ai m .” Id . On Feb ru ary 16 , 20 05 , th e tr ia l co urt en te redanord er d en y in g Doo rb al ’s am en de d m ot io n. Id
. Doo rb al ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f to th e Supr em e Co urt of Flo rid a an d “ pr es en t[e d] si x c la im s o n re vi ew,” in cl ud in g t he de ni al of h is cl ai m s wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d t he form of t he ord er o f th e tr ia l co urt. Id . at 4 75 –8 9. As t o the m eri ts of Do orba l’s cl ai m s, t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a

“ co nc lu de [d ] th atth is is su e [wa]s i ns uf fic ie nt ly ple d” be cau se Doo rb al fai le d t o 9“ st at e[] th e subs ta nc e o f an y of the cla im s t ha t wer e su m m ari ly den ie d [a ndfai le d to ] pr ov id e[] an ex pl an at io n wh y su m m ary de ni al was i napp ro pr ia te or wh at factua l d et erm in at io n was requi red .” Id . at 4 82 . Becau se Doo rb al als o fa il edto pr es erv e th e u nd erl y in g c la im forrev ie w on ap pe al , th e “ cl ai m [wa]s waiv ed .” Id
. at48 2– 83 . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a st at edth at“ [v ]ario us cla im s ra is edby Doo rb al in th is 3.8 51 pro ceed in g wer e p la gu edby a lackof s uf fic ie nc y in th at Doo rb al fai le d t o a ll eg e a s pe ci fic om is si on or o ve rt a ctup onwhi ch hi s cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce was ba se d.” Id. at48 3. Th e co urt ev enwentso far as to us e Doo rb al ’s pl ead in g d efi ci en ci es as awarn in g fo r ot he r co un se l wh o re pr es en t po st co nv ic ti onm ov an ts sen te nc edto de ath: [T]he ru le 3.8 51 pr oc eed in gs in th e tri al co urt, an d on ap pe al be fo re th is Co urt, h av e be en pl ag ue d by ge ne ral ity an d lackof s pe ci fic it y . . . . W e st ro ng ly rei te rat e to th os e who rep res en t cap it al de fen dant s in po st c o n v i ct io n pr oc eed in gs th at cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l m

us t co m pl y wit h th e pl ead in g requi rem en ts en un ci at ed by th is Co urt . . . to be leg al ly suf fic ie ntun de r th e ru le
. Id . at 4 84
. Doo rb al arg ue d t ha t “ th e fo rm of the ord er d en y in g re li ef fa il s t o p ro vi de [th e Fl or id a Supr em e] Cou rt wi th gu id an ce fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w bec au se itdo es no t re fere nc e h eari ng s, t ran sc rip ts , or a ny po rti on of t he reco rd [,]” bu t t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a reject edth is arg um en t. Id . at 4 89 . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a

10co nc lu de d t ha t the ord er o f th e tr ia l co urt “ pr ov id e[d ] a sp eci fic ba si s wh y th e tr ia l
co urt d en ie d e ach cla im

wit ho utanev id en ti ary he ari ng .” Id . The co urt al so st at ed th at“ th e ad equa cy

of t he su m

m ary de ni al ord er i s ar gu ab ly m oo t” be cau se th e co urt h adde te rm in edth atDoo rb al fai le d t o p res erv e th atcla im an d i t was waiv ed
. Id . at 4 89 n.1 2. Th e co urt af firm edth e d eci si onof t he tri al co urt d en y in g po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f. Id. at50 0. Doo rb al th en fil eda pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us ina fed eral di st ric t co urt an d p res en te d, am on g o th ers , a cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f tr ia l
co un se l b as edonth e fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he clo si ng arg um en ts by the pro se cu to r. The di st ric t co urt re

jecte d Do orba l’s cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l be cau se th e d eci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a th atth e cl ai m was wai ve d
was anin de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e g ro un d u nd er s ta te law t ha t b arre d fe de ral
rev ie w. The d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t, b ecau se “ th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt im po se d apro cedur al ba r to Doo rb al ’s cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ne ss of t ria l co un se l, th is cla im [wa]s no t p ro pe rly befo re [t he di st ric t co urt] forhabe as rev ie w.” The di st ric t co urt al so rul edalt ern at iv el y th atDoo rb al ’s cla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e of co un se l fa il edon th e m eri ts . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he de ci si on of th e st at e tr ia l co urt o n c ol la te ral rev ie w th atDoo rb al fai le d t o p ro ve pre jud ic e be cau se he fai le d t o e st ab li sh fun da m en ta l erro r on di rectap pe al was n otco nt rary 11to , or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87 , 69 1– 92 , 10 4 S
.

Ct . at 2 06 4, 2 06 6– 67 . See, e.g ., Gord on v. Un it edSta te s, 5 18 F.3d12 91 , 12 98 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . The d is tri ctco urt n ev ert he le ss gra nt eda cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

forDoo rb al ’s cla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. II . STANDARDS OF REVIEW Inhabe as pro ceed in gs , th is Co urt re vi ews th e fi nd in gs of t he di st ric t co urt fo r cl ear e rro r an d “ it s l eg al co nc lu si on s an d m ix edqu es ti on s o f law andfactde
no vo .” Park er v . Sec’y

forth e Dep ’t of Co rr., 33 1 F .3d76 4, 7 68 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

“ [W] he th er a p art ic ul ar cl ai m is subjec t t o t he do ctrin e o f pr oc edur al de fau lt
. . . is
a m ix edqu es ti on of f

actan d l aw, whi ch we rev ie w de n ov o.” Ju ddv. Hal ey , 25 0 F.3 d 1 30 8, 1 31 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. II I. DI SCUSSI ON

“ It i s wel l es tabl is he d t ha t fe de ral co urts wil l n otrev ie w qu es ti on s o f fed eral la w pre se nt edin a habe as pe ti ti on when th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on res ts up on a st at e-l aw gr ou ndth at‘ is in de pe nd en t o f th e fed eral qu es ti on an d a de qu at e to supp ort t he jud gm en t.’” Con e v . Bel l, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 76 9, 1 78 0 (2 00 9) (qu ot in g Co le m an v. Th om

ps on , 50 1 U.S. 7 22 , 72 9, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 54 6, 2 55 3 (1 99 1) ). The Supr em e Co urt h as “ he ldth atwhen a pe ti ti on er fa il s t o ra is e h is fed eral cla im s i n co m pl ianc e wit h re le vantst at e p ro cedur al rul es , th e st at e co urt’s re fu sa l t o 12ad

jud ic at e th e cl ai m

ord in ari ly qua li fie s as anin de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e st at e gr ou ndforde nyin g fe de ral rev ie w.” Id. Th e ad equa cy of t he pro cedur al ba r is no t
a m atte r of

st at e la w, bu t “ is it se lf afed eral qu es ti on .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. W e ap pl y a th ree- pa rt t es t t o d et erm in e whe th er t he st at e d eci si on res te d up on an“ in de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e” g ro un d u nd er s ta te law: Fi rs t, th e la st st at e co urt ren de rin g a ju dg m en t in th e cas e m us t cl earl y an d ex pr es sl y st at e th at it is rel y in g on st at e pr oc edur al ru le s to res ol ve th e fed eral cl ai m wit ho ut reac hi ng th e m eri ts of th at cl ai m . Seco nd ly, th e st at e co urt’s de ci si on m us t res t so li dl y on st at e la w gr ou nd s, an d m ay no t b e “ in te rtwi ne d wi th anin te rp ret at io n o f fed eral law.” Fi na ll y , th e st at e pr oc edur al ru le m

us t be ad equa te ; i.e., it m

us t no t be ap pl ie d in an arb it rary or u np rece de nt edfas hi on [orbe m an ife st ly unf ai r]. Ju dd , 25 0 F .3dat 1 31 3 (q uo ti ng Cardv. Du gg er, 9 11 F.2d14 94 (11 th Cir . 19 90 )). Inhi s b rie f an d a t o ral arg um en t, Do or ba l u rg edus to co ns id er fi rs t t he
m eri ts of h is cla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, b utin Lam br ix v. Si ng le ta ry , 52 0 U.S. 5 18 , 52 5, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 51 7, 1 52 3 (1 99 7) , th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t we ar e o rd in ari ly bou ndto co ns id er fi rs t an y is su e o f pr oc edur al de fau lt : A St at e’s pr oc e d ur al ru le s are of vi ta l im po rta nc e to th e or de rly ad m in is tra ti on of it s cri m in al co urts ; whe n a fed eral co urt pe rm it s th em to be read il y ev ad ed , it un de rm in es th e cri m in al jus ti ce syste m . W e do no t m ean to s u g g e s t th at th e pr oc edur al -b ar is su e m us t in variabl y be res ol ve d fi rs t; on ly tha t i t o rd in ari ly sho ul d b e. 13The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t i t co ul d n otrev ie w Doo rb al ’s cla im of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l b ecau se of h is pro cedur al de fau ltin hi s ap pe al be fo re t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a, an d Doo rb al fai ls to pro vi de a so un d re as on forva ry in g fro m th e o rd in ary ru le of r ev ie win g tha t i ss ue fir st . Doo rb al pre se nt s t wo ar gu m en ts ab ou t h is pro cedur al de fau lt . Firs t, Doo rb al arg ue s t ha t the pro cedur al rul e ap pl ie d b y th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a to ba r hi s cl ai m

was n ot“ firm ly establ is he d a ndco ns is te nt ly app li ed .” Seco nd , Doo rb al arg ue s t ha t h e ap pe al edon ly the su ffi ci en cy of t he ord er b y

th e tr ia l co urt th atde ni edhi s p os tc on vi ct io n m ot io n a nddi d n otad dr es s t he m eri ts of t he is su es he all eg edin th atm ot io n. Bo th arg um en ts fai l. The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a fo ll owe d i ts well -es tabl is he d ru le when it
co nc lu de d t ha t Do orba l’s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l was waiv ed be cau se he fai le d t o p res en t an arg um en t ab ou t t he m eri ts of t ha t i ss ue on ap pe al
. Doo rb al II, 98 3 S o. 2 d a t 4 82 . The co urt ci te d S m it h v . Sta te , 93 1 S o. 2 d 7 90 , 80 0 (Fl a. 20 06 ), fo r th e p ro cedur al rul e “ th atva gu e an d c on cl us ory all eg at io ns on ap pe al are i ns uf

fic ie ntto warran t re li ef” a ndco nc lu de d t ha t Do orba l’s at ta ckon th e m eri ts of t he ord er o f th e tr ia l co urt was waiv edbe cau se he “ ne ithe r st at e[d ] th e subs ta nc e o f an y

of t he cla im s tha t wer e su m m ari ly den ie d, n orpro vi de [d ] an ex pl an at io n wh y

su m m ary de ni al was i napp ro pr ia te or wh atfactua l d et erm in at io n

14was requi redoneach cla im .” Doo rb al II, 98 3 S o. 2 d a t 4 82 –8 3. Th atpro cedur al

ru le ha s b een ap pl ie d re gu la rly in F lo rid a co urts . Sim m on s v . Sta te , 93 4 S o. 2 d 11 00 , 11 11 n.1 2 (F la . 20 06 ) (“ W e al so fin d t ha t Si m m on s’ cla im

th atth e pr os ecu to r m ad e im

pr op er re m ark s co nc ern in g t he m tDNA ev id en ce o n S imm on s’
car s eatis waiv edbe cau se Simm on s’ cou ns el di d n otpro pe rly bri ef t hi s i ss ue for ap pe al .”); Lawren ce v . Sta te , 83 1 S o. 2 d 1 21 , 13 3 (F la . 20 02 ) (“ Bec au se Lawren ce’s b are c la im

is un supp orte d b y

arg um en t, t hi s C ou rt a ffi rm s t he tri al
co urt’s s umm ary de ni al of t hi s s ub cl ai m .”); Carr ol l v . Sta te , 81 5 S o. 2 d 6 01 , 60 9 n.7 (Fl a. 20 02 ) (“ Carr ol l al le ge s t ha t t he tri al co urt erredin su m m ari ly den y in g cl ai m s . . . in hi s amend ed3.8 50 m ot io n a s b ei ng pro cedur al ly barre d o r witho ut
m eri t. Onap pe al , ho wev er, Carro ll fai ls to ass ertan y de fin it iv e arg um en t as to th is is su e. Thu s, we fi ndth is is su e is in su ffi ci en tl y pre se nt edfor

rev ie w.”); Sh ere v. St at e, 74 2 S o. 2 d 2 15 , 21 7 n .6 (F la . 19 99 ) (Be cau se “ Sh ere d idno t p res en t an y arg um en t o r al le ge on whatgro un ds th e tr ia l co urt erredin de nyin g [h is ] cl ai m s[ , w] e fi ndth atth es e cl ai m s ar e in su ffi ci en tl y pre se nt edforrev ie w.”); Dues t v . Dug ge r, 55 5 S o. 2 d 8 49 , 85 2 (F la . 19 90 ) (“ Mer el y m ak in g re fere nc e to arg um en ts be lo w witho utfurth er el uc id at io n d oe s n otsu ffi ce t o p res erv e is su es , andth es e cl ai m s ar e d eem edto ha ve be en waiv ed .”); Denm arkv. St at e, 11 6 S o. 7 57 , 75 9 (Fl a. 19 28 ) (“ [A]ssi gn m en ts of e rro r . . . m ay li ke wis e b e tr eat edas aba nd on ed
. . . 15be cau se th e b rie f co nt ai ns no arg um en t, p rin ci pl e o f la w, or ci ta ti on of aut ho rit y in
supp ort o f th e as si gn m en ts .”). The r ul e sa ti sf ie s t he requi rem en t tha t i t b e “ firm ly
es tabl is he d a ndreg ul arl y fol lo wed ” to be anin de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e g ro un d
un de r st at e la w. See Payne v . All en , 53 9 F .3d12 97 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Doo rb al fai ls to pre se ntan y arg um en t t ha t wo ul d a ll ow h im to ov erco m e h is pr oc edur al de fau lt . “ Bec au se [th e p ro cedur al ] ru le was a n i nd ep en de ntan d ad equa te st at e g ro un d, we ar e b arre d fr om habe as rev ie w of [Do orba l’s] in effe ct iv e-t ria l-c ou ns el cla im [] unl es s h e sh ows cau se an d p reju di ce t o o ve rco m e [Fl or id a’s] pro cedur al ba r.” Id . at 1 31 4. If Do orba l ca nn otpro ve cau se an d pr ejud ic e, “ he
. . . m

us t s ho w th atbu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r athi s s en te nc in g he ari ng , no reas on ab le juro r co ul d h av e fo un d h im eli gi bl e fo r th e d eat h p en al ty un de r [s ta te ] la w.” Bal dwi n v . Jo hn so n, 1 52 F.3d13 04 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Doo rb al ha s fa il edto all eg e cau se an d pr ejud ic e o r actua l i nn oc en ce tha t wo ul d e xc us e th e p ro cedur al de fau ltof h is cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, an d “ [h ]e is t he refo re b arre d fr om rai si ng itno w.” See At wate r v. C ro sb y , 45 1 F .3d79 9, 8 10 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Doo rb al ’s alt ern at iv e arg um en t t ha t h e d idno t d efau ltun de r th e st at e ru le of pr oc edur e b ecau se he di d n otap pe al th e m eri ts of t he ord er o f th e tr ia l co urt fa res no be tt er. Doo rb al arg ue s tha t h e “ el ect [ed ] to pu rs ue anap pe al th atatt ack edth e 16su ffi ci en cy

of t he ord er ra th er t ha n t he m eri ts ,” bu t i f th atis tru e, th en Doo rb al fai le d t o e xh au sthi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l an d h is pe ti ti on st il l is barredfro m

fed eral rev ie w. A sta te pri so ne r m ay no t s eekfed eral habe as rev ie w un le ss he ha s “ ex haus te d t he rem ed ie s av ai labl e in th e co urts of t he Sta te .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( b) (1 )(A); see Co ne , 12 9 S . Ct. at17 81 (“ A cla im is pro cedur al ly ba rredwhen itha s n otbe enfai rly pres en te d t o t he st at e co urts for th ei r in it ia l
co ns id erat io n . . . .”). “ [T]he st at e p ris on er m us t g iv e th e st at e co urts an op po rtu ni ty to ac t o n h is cla im s b efo re h e p res en ts th os e cl ai m s t o afed eral co urt in a habe as pe ti ti on .” O’ Su ll iv an v. Bo erck el , 52 6 U.S. 8 38 , 84 2, 1 19 S. Ct. 1 72 8, 17 31 (19 99 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t ex haus ti on requi res a ro un d of ap pe ll at e rev ie w: Bec a us e th e ex haus ti on do ctrin e is de si gn ed to gi ve th e st at e co urts a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to res ol ve fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s be fo re th os e cl ai m s ar e p res en te d t o t he fed eral co urts , we con cl ud e th atst at e pr is on ers m

us t gi ve th e st at e co urts on e fu ll op po rtu ni ty to res ol ve an y co ns ti tu ti on a l i s s u e s by in vo ki ng on e co m pl et e ro un d of th e St at e’s es tabl is he d app el la te rev ie w pro ces s. Id . at 8 45 , 11 9 S . Ct. at17 32 . If Doo rb al fai le d t o app eal th e d en ia l o f hi s cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o n t he m eri ts , th en he fai le d t o e xh au sthi s s ta te rem ed ie s. Doo rb al face s a d oubl e-ed ge d s wor d. Eit he r arg um en t h e adva nc es lea ds to th e sa m e co nc lu si on : Hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i s b arre d fr om

17fed eral rev ie w. The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err whe n i t d en ie d h is pe ti ti on . IV. CONCLUSI ON The de ni al of Do orba l’s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us is AFFIRMED.

18