FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 94 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 7- cv -0 01 61 -MS S-KRS
ALFONSO JOSE ALZAMORA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er - Ap pe ll an t,
vers us SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY G ENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andBARKETT, Circu itJu dg es , andSMOAK, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble Richard Smoak, United States D istrict J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation.PER CURI AM:

Alfo ns o J os e Alz am or a ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f hi s p et it io n fo r habe as rel ie f, fil edpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4, an d a rg ue s tha t t he di st ric t
co ur t erredwhen itde te rm in edth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on up ho ld in g h is co nv ic ti on di d n otin vo lv e an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Supr em e Co ur t p rece de ntun de r AEDPA. Spec ifi cal ly, th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Al zam or a a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on whet he r du e p ro ces s re qu ire s the ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on in Th omp so n v . St at e , 69 5 So .2d69 1 (F la . 19 97 ), whi ch he ldth atkn owl ed ge of avi ct im ’s st atus as apo li ce of fic er was a ne ces sa ry

ele m en t o f th e o ffen se of a tt em pt edm ur de r of a po li ce of fic er i n F lo rid a, of

whi ch Alza m or a was co nv ic te d. Al zam or a arg ue s t ha t t he st at e co ur t’s fa il ur e to ap pl y Th omp so n ret ro act iv el y is anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on in Fio re v. W hi te , 12 1 S.Ct . 71 2 (2 00 1) , whi ch in vo lv eda si m il ar i ss ue of wh et he r a s ta te co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n o f it s o wn s ta tu te to requi re anad di ti on al ele m en t o f pr oo f sh ou ld ap pl y ret ro act iv el y . I. Sta nd ardof r ev ie w un de r AEDPA Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), a fed eral co ur t ca nn otgra nthabe as rel ie f fro m a

2st at e co ur t ju dg m en t u nl es s t he st at e co ur t’s d eci si on onth e m eri ts of the is su e was

(1 ) 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
as de te rm in edby the U.S. Sup rem e Co ur t; or ( 2) ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co ur t pr oc eed in g. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ); Pow el l v. Al le n , 60 2 F .3d12 63 , 12 68 -6 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cer t. d

en ie d, (U.S. Ja n. 1 8, 2 01 1) (No. 1 0- 70 39 ). Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on ab ou t wh ethe r th e st at e co ur t ac te d c on tra ry to
orun reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, o r m ad e an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f fac t, b utth is Co ur t o wes de fere nc e to th e st at e co ur t’s fi na l habe as jud gm en t. Reed

v. Se c’y, Fl a. Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 59 3 F .3d12 17 , 12 39 (11 th Ci r.), cer t. d

en ie d, 13 1 S .Ct. 1 77 (20 10 ).

II. Dis cu ss io n Alza m or a arg ue s t ha t athi s t ria l h e was en ti tl edto a jury ins tru ct io n ex pl ai ni ng th atkn owl ed ge of t he vi ct im ’s st atus as alaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer was
an ess en ti al ele m en t o f th e cri m e ch arg ed . W e n eedno t re ach th is qu es ti on be cau se we co nc lu de th atth e fai lu re t o g iv e th is in st ru ct io n, u nd er t he fact s o f th is
cas e, co ns ti tu te d h arm le ss erro r, an d, t he refo re, h e is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f fro m th is Co ur t. Se e , e.g. , Neder

v. Uni te d Sta te s , 52 7 U.S. 1 , 15 (19 99 ) (“ The om is si on of
an ele m en t fr om

th e jury ins tru ct io ns is subjec t t o h arm le ss -err oran al y si s.”) ; se e 3al

so Aga n v . Vaugh n , 11 9 F .3d15 38 , 15 45 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ A def en da nt ’s rig ht to du e p ro ces s i s n otvi ol at edun le ss anerro ne ou s i ns tru ct io n, wh en vi ewedin li gh t o f th e en ti re t ria l, was so m is le ad in g a s t o m ak e th e tr ia l u nf ai r.”). We loo k to th e tr ia l re co rdto de te rm in e whe th er t he tri al jud ge ’s fai lu re t o i ns tru ctth e jury
as to th e kno wled ge ele m en t o f at te m pt edfel on y -m

ur de r of a po li ce o ffi cer ren de redth e tr ia l u nf

ai r. Tha t re co rdrefl ect s o ve rwh el m in g e vi de nc e th atAlza m or a kne w th atth e vi ct im was apo li ce o ffi cer. Th e v ic ti m , Detec ti ve Ro n J oh ns on tes ti fie d a t t ria l th athe was am em

be r of th e arr es t t eam

du rin g t he st in g o pe rat io n t o a rres t Alza m or a. He tes ti fie d t ha t wh en he app ro ach edAlza m or a’s car f ro m th e driv er’s si de , he was weari ng “ a b la ckflap jack etwhi ch lo ok s l ik e a s ki jacke t wi th th e wor d ‘po li ce’ on th e fro ntan d b ack .” Thi s jack etwas a dm it te d a s ev id en ce, an d Age ntJo hn so n p utitonto sh ow t he juro rs . Agen t J oh ns on fur th er t es ti fie d t ha t Alza m or a lo ok edat h im

whi le th e “ ta ke do wn” was i n p ro gr es s, an d tha t wh en he op en edAlza m or a’s car d oo r, he was yell in g “ po li ce.” Atth is po in t Al zam or a st art edhi s ca r, dr ag gi ng Dete ct iv e Jo hn so n t o t he gro un d. Th e d oo r oran ot he r pa rt o f th e carhi t J oh ns on in th e h ead , in juri ng hi m

sev erel y . Lik ewis e, Offi cer Lan fers ei k, an ot he r m em be r of th e st in g o pe rat io n, te st ifi edth atas De te ct iv e Jo hn so n app ro ach edAlza m or a’s car f ro m th e si de , he
4he ardJo hn so n s ho ut , “ Po li ce! Yo u’re u nd er arres t!” whi le he att em pt edto op en Alza m or a’s car d oo r. Agen t J oh ns on an d Ag en t Lan fers ei k b ot h t es ti fie d t ha t Age ntJo hn so n a ndot he r ag en ts were y el li ng “po li ce” a nd“po li ci a” dur in g t he in ci de nt . A go ve rn m en t i nf orm an t wh o was als o a t t he sce ne tes ti fie d t ha t h e he ardth e ag en ts sh ou t “ po li ce.” Fu rth er, Ag en t J oh ns on st at edth atitwas h is pr act ic e to y el l the word“po li ce” wh il e d oi ng th is type o f “ ta ke do wn.” Bas edon th es e fac ts , we con cl ud e th atth e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce s ho ws th atth e jury woul d l ik el y ha ve fou ndth atAlza m or a kne w hi s v ic ti m was apo li ce of fic er atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . The fai lu re t o s o i ns tru ctwas t he refo re h arm le ss erro r, an d Al zam or a is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. AFFIRMED.

5