Opinion ID: 807391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AEDPA Deference Generally

Text: As in so many federal habeas cases reviewing state convictions, setting the proper scope and standard of federal court review is critical.21 A federal court may not grant a petitioner habeas relief on a claim that was adjudicated on the merits by the state court unless the state court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”22 The state court’s factual findings are presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts those findings with clear and convincing evidence.23 Because Shelton brings a facial challenge, the state court’s factual findings are not in dispute and Section 2254(d)(2) is not implicated. The Supreme Court has explained the requirements of Section 2254(d)(1) as follows: Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached 21 Because Shelton filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs our review. See Land v. Allen, 573 F.3d 1211, 1215 (11th Cir. 2009). 22 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 23 Id. § 2254(e)(1). 7 Case: 11-13515 Date Filed: 08/24/2012 Page: 8 of 15 by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.24 That is, “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law,”25 the former “a substantially higher threshold.”26 To obtain relief under § 2254(d), the petitioner “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”27