Opinion ID: 78246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: federal habeas corpus standard of review

Text: We review the district court’s denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Jamerson v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 410 F.3d 682, 687 (11th Cir. 2005). Likewise, we review the district court’s conclusions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d 831, 836 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Id. Because Wellons timely filed his first petition for federal habeas corpus relief on May 18, 2001, and is in state custody, his application for habeas relief is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). AEDPA establishes a “‘highly deferential standard for reviewing state court judgments.’” Jamerson, 410 F.3d at 687 (quoting Parker v. Sec’y for Dep’t 16 of Corr., 331 F.3d 764, 768 (11th Cir. 2003)). Thus, pursuant to § 2254(d), we have the authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to claims “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings” only when the State court’s adjudication of those claims 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 . . . 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). The text of § 2254(d) outlines the scope of “clearly established Federal law” to include only those decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Id. In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000), the Supreme Court interpreted § 2254(d) to limit federal habeas analysis to the Court’s holdings, not dicta, as of the time the state court adjudicated the petitioner’s claims. Id. at 412, 120 S. Ct. at 1523 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). A state court’s adjudication is “contrary to” federal law if it “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Id. at 413, 120 S. Ct. at 1523. On the other hand, a state court’s adjudication is “an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law if the state court “identifies the correct governing legal 17 principle from th[e] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. To issue the writ in either case, the state court’s application of federal law must be objectively unreasonable; we cannot grant habeas relief simply because we conclude that the state court applied federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Id. at 411, 120 S. Ct. at 1522; see also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 27, 123 S. Ct. 357, 361, 154 L. Ed. 2d 279 (2002) (per curiam) (“The federal habeas scheme leaves primary responsibility with the state courts for these judgments[] and authorizes federal-court intervention only when a state-court decision is objectively unreasonable.”). In reviewing whether a state court’s decision was based on an “unreasonable determination of the facts” under § 2254(d)(2), we presume the state court’s factual findings are correct absent the petitioner’s showing of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1041, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003); Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d at 835–36. This statutory presumption of correctness applies to the factual determinations of both state trial and appellate courts. Bui v. Haley, 321 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003). It does not apply, however, to state-court determinations on mixed questions of law and fact, which we review de novo. Parker, 244 F.3d at 836. 18 Finally, we review a federal habeas court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. Schriro v. Landrigan, — U.S. —, 127 S. Ct. 1933, 1939, 167 L. Ed. 2d 836 (2007). With these standards of review in mind, we now turn to Wellons’s claims.