Opinion ID: 71962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue Raised By Grubbs

Text: 20 The issue raised by Grubbs on cross-appeal is whether the district court erred in denying him relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim because of his procedural default. We review this issue de novo. See, Tower, 7 F.3d at 210. 21 As stated above, federal courts may not address claims that have not been presented in state court if the state court would have found the claims to be procedurally defaulted, unless the petitioner is able to show both cause for the default and prejudice resulting therefrom. See id. With regard to Grubbs's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the district court conducted a procedural default analysis and concluded that Grubbs did not present to the state courts the specific instances of alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel he now presents, and would be precluded from presenting them in a successive state motion. See Grubbs, 892 F.Supp. at 1488-89 (citing Spaziano v. State, 545 So.2d 843, 844-45 (Fla.1989)). The district court further concluded that Grubbs failed to show cause to excuse such a default. Id. 22 Grubbs argues that he has shown sufficient cause. According to Grubbs, his failure to raise the specific instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his Rule 3.850 motion was caused by appellate counsel's failure to raise the instances on direct appeal. We reject this argument since, as the district court noted, there is no logical connection between appellate counsel's failure to raise the instances on direct appeal and Grubbs's failure to raise the instances in his Rule 3.850 motion. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Grubbs relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim because of his procedural default.