Opinion ID: 178000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Three Remaining Claims

Text: Lambrix's remaining claims allege that: (1) the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), when it failed to reveal to the defense that the State's witness Frances Smith allegedly had a sexual relationship with the State Attorney's Investigator Robert Daniels (Claim 3); (2) the State violated Brady and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), by failing to disclose that the tire iron used to kill Moore contained hairs that did not match the victims but were allegedly consistent with Smith's and by allegedly substituting a fake tire iron to be admitted against Lambrix at trial (Claim 6); and (3) he is actually innocent (Claim 2). As to Claim 3 about the alleged sexual relationship, the state trial court held an evidentiary hearing and determined, after evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, that no sexual relationship existed. See Lambrix v. State, 39 So.3d 260, 266-68 (Fla.2010). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the state trial court's denial of state postconviction relief. Id. at 266-70. The Florida Supreme Court found no basis in the record to reject the trial court's factual finding that no sexual encounter occurred between Smith and Daniels. Id. at 269. The Florida Supreme Court also concluded that Lambrix could not in any event show that the allegedly suppressed evidence was sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of Lambrix's trial because: (1) the alleged one-time sexual encounter between Smith and Daniels could only have occurred during Lambrix's second trial, but Smith's statements during the investigation and the first trial were consistent with her second-trial testimony; (2) during the evidentiary hearing Smith reaffirmed her testimony inculpating Lambrix; and (3) even if Lambrix impeached Smith with evidence of her alleged sexual encounter with Daniels, there is no basis to conclude that the jury would have disregarded or not found credible the substantial testimony Smith provided as to the facts of the murders. Id. at 269-70. After reviewing the allegations in Claim 3, we conclude Lambrix has not shown that the factual predicate underlying Claim 3 could not have been discovered previously through due diligence, as required by § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i). Additionally, we conclude Lambrix has not made a prima facie showing under § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) that the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). As to Claim 6 about the tire iron, the state trial court denied this claim, which Lambrix raised in his latest state successive postconviction motion on April 9, 2009. On July 19, 2010, the state trial court concluded that (1) Lambrix did not demonstrate that the records upon which the claim is based could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, and (2) the untested hairs found on the tire iron did not exonerate Lambrix because they did not prove he was not the perpetrator or was not present at the crime scene. Lambrix appealed the state trial court's denial of this tire iron claim, and his appeal is pending before the Florida Supreme Court. Lambrix v. State, No. SC10-1845 (Fla.) (appeal docketed Sept. 28, 2010). Therefore Lambrix has not yet exhausted his state remedies as to this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (providing that a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted to a state prisoner by a federal court unless the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State); Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir.2010) ([T]o properly exhaust a claim, the petitioner must fairly present every issue raised in his federal petition to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or on collateral review. (quotation marks and brackets omitted)). In any event, Lambrix's own statements vitiate this tire iron claim. In his Application, Lambrix admits grabbing and handling the tire iron and hitting Moore with it. Even if the tire iron had hairs of another person, that does not contradict the trial evidence or exonerate Lambrix. Lambrix has established neither prong of § 2244(b)(2)(B). As to Claim 2 alleging Lambrix's freestanding actual innocence claim, we note that Lambrix must overcome several significant hurdles at the outset, including whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence exists apart from any claim of constitutional error at trial and whether such a claim, even if it is cognizable, is the kind of claim that can be brought in a second or successive petition. See In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810, 816, 823-24 (11th Cir.2009) (stating that it is not clear at all under the case law whether ... a freestanding actual innocence claim ... is viable on federal habeas corpus review, much less whether it is available to be raised in a second or successive petition). But we need not resolve these threshold issues, because even assuming Lambrix can make a freestanding actual innocence claim, the facts Lambrix proffers in support of this claim are the same facts alleged elsewhere in his Application: the alleged Smith/Daniels sexual relationship, the Hanzel recantation, the hairs on the tire iron that do not match Lambrix or the victims, etc. For the same reasons Lambrix has not satisfied the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B) as to his other claims, he likewise has not as to his actual innocence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring that the facts underlying the claim establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable finder of fact would have found the applicant guilty). Alternatively, even assuming freestanding actual innocence claims are cognizable, and even if § 2244(b)'s requirements were to have no application to actual innocence claims, Lambrix's purported facts fall far short of the type and quantity of evidence necessary to establish a truly persuasive demonstration of `actual innocence.' Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417, 113 S.Ct. 853, 869, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) (assuming, without deciding, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of `actual innocence' made after trial would render the execution of the defendant unconstitutional, but stating that the threshold showing for such an assumed right would necessarily be extraordinarily high).