Opinion ID: 4185584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “When reviewing a district court’s grant or denial of habeas relief, we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and findings of fact for clear error.” Reaves v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 717 F.3d 886, 899 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). An ineffective assistance of counsel claim “presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” Pope v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 752 F.3d 1254, 1261 (11th Cir. 2014). So too does a claim that a juror’s potential bias violated a petitioner’s right to a fair trial. See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961). Because the Florida state courts decided each of Willacy’s three claims on the merits, we must review these claims under the standards set by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-03 (2000). AEDPA bars federal courts from granting habeas relief to a petitioner on a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication: 16 Case: 14-13797 Date Filed: 07/12/2017 Page: 17 of 25 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “‘[C]learly established Federal law’ under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003). With respect to § 2254(d)(2), “[s]tate court fact-findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness unless the petitioner rebuts that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” Conner v. GDCP Warden, 784 F.3d 752, 761 (11th Cir. 2015).