Court Opinion

ID: 9943056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:02:13.62781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:00.182458
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14207    Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-14207
                           ____________________

        THOMAS JAMES MOORE,
                                                     Petitioner-Appellant,
        versus
        SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
        ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                  Respondents-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 3:06-cv-00127-MMH
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14207        Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024      Page: 2 of 11

        2                        Opinion of the Court                 22-14207

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ABUDU, Cir-
        cuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Petitioner Thomas James Moore, who was sentenced to
        death in a Florida state court for killing Johnny Parrish, appeals the
        district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of
        habeas corpus. We granted Moore a certificate of appealability
        (“COA”) on one issue: whether the State of Florida presented false
        testimony, in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972),
        from witness Vincent Gaines at trial. After a thorough review of
        the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the
        district court’s denial of Moore’s habeas petition.
            I.      BACKGROUND
                    A. The Facts of Conviction and Moore’s Trial
                The Supreme Court of Florida set forth the facts of the case
        as follows:
                 Moore was convicted of robbing and killing Johnny
                 Parrish—an adult resident of his neighborhood—and
                 burning down Parrish’s house. The two were friends,
                 and Moore occasionally visited Parrish’s home. On
                 January 21, 1993, at about 3 p.m., Moore sat outside
                 Parrish’s house drinking with the victim. Moore
                 claim[ed] that two other youths, Clemons and
                 Gaines, approached the house. Moore claimed he
                 saw the pair chase a neighborhood youth named “Lit-
                 tle Terry” with a gun earlier that day, but Clemons de-
                 nied it at trial. Clemons and Gaines testiﬁed that they
USCA11 Case: 22-14207     Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 3 of 11

        22-14207              Opinion of the Court                        3

              had a conversation with Moore about robbing Par-
              rish. Clemons said he agreed to go in the house with
              Moore, and Gaines was to be the lookout. Gaines said
              he stood outside but did not see either man go in. He
              said he heard two shots and then saw Clemons come
              out of the house and go back in. When Gaines
              started to walk away, Clemons caught up with him
              and told him Moore had shot Parrish.

              Clemons said that when he and Moore went into the
              house, Moore pulled out a gun. Moore asked Parrish
              where his money was and then shot him when he got
              no response. Later, neighbors saw smoke in Parrish’s
              house and ran in and pulled out Parrish. Parrish was
              already dead when exposed to the ﬁre, and a ﬁre in-
              vestigator, Captain Mattox, said that there were two
              separate ﬁres in the house, both of which were inten-
              tionally set.

              A witness named Shorter testiﬁed that Moore
              brought him a bag of clothes and asked him to burn
              them. Shorter also testiﬁed that Moore told him he
              had shot Parrish and set ﬁre to the house. Shorter
              stated that Moore said he shot Parrish twice, that
              Clemons ran out of the house, and that Moore took
              the top oﬀ a lawn mower he found and set it on ﬁre
              to clean the house of ﬁngerprints. Shorter did not call
              the police but did call his mother, who called the po-
              lice.

              A jail inmate, Jackson, testiﬁed that Moore told him
              that he did not mean to kill Parrish but had to because
USCA11 Case: 22-14207      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024      Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court                    22-14207

               Parrish would recognize him. Another neighbor,
               Dean, testiﬁed that Moore asked him to rob Parrish.

        Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545, 547 (Fla. 1997) (“Moore I”).
                In addition to the testimony described above, Gaines also
        testified as a witness for the State. On cross examination, Gaines
        testified that he and Clemons were best friends. Defense counsel
        then questioned him about the day of the murder. Gaines admitted
        to lying to his mother about attending school that day. Instead, he
        went to his aunt’s house to go back to sleep; woke up around noon;
        went outside and hung out with some neighborhood boys; and
        went back home around 3:00 pm to check in with his mother.
        Gaines remembered specific details about the day as well, including
        speaking to Clemons’s brother for a while and where other neigh-
        borhood teenagers were when Moore asked him to participate in
        the robbery. As to chasing Little Terry, Gaines specifically denied
        seeing Clemons with a chrome-plated .38 caliber gun, and when
        asked whether he had seen Little Terry at all on the day of the mur-
        der, Gaines stated, “[n]ot that I can remember.”
               Moore disputed the State’s evidence regarding his guilt, and
        he testified in his own defense that he did not kill Parrish. Moore
        further explained that he saw Clemons chase Little Terry with a
        gun the day of the murder. Moore called Little Terry as a witness
        as well, who confirmed that Clemons and Gaines had confronted
        him the day of the murder. Little Terry stated that one of them
        reached for a gun before he was able to run away, but he did not
        identify whether it was Clemons or Gaines who had the gun.
USCA11 Case: 22-14207      Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 5 of 11

        22-14207               Opinion of the Court                        5

               After the State and Moore both rested their cases, the parties
        moved to closing arguments. Moore’s closing argument advanced
        his theory of defense: Gaines and Clemons were liars, they were
        chasing Little Terry with a gun the day of the murder, and
        Clemons—the only person who had a gun on him that day—was
        the one who robbed and shot Parrish. After jury deliberations, the
        jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. Specifically, as to the
        murder charge, the jury returned a general verdict, finding Moore
        guilty of first-degree murder with a firearm.
               Ultimately, the jury recommended that Moore be sentenced
        to death for the murder charge. Following a sentencing hearing,
        the trial court adopted the jury’s recommendation and Moore re-
        ceived the death penalty.
                   B. Procedural History
               Moore filed a direct appeal and raised various claims for re-
        lief. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Moore’s conviction
        and sentence. Moore I, 701 So. 2d at 547. Moore petitioned the
        United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S.
        Supreme Court denied on April 20, 1998. Moore v. Florida, 523 U.S.
        1083 (1998). Moore subsequently filed three post-conviction mo-
        tions, but only the third one is relevant to his instant appeal. On
        January 27, 2006, Moore filed his third post-conviction motion. In
        his motion, Moore argued that he had discovered new evidence
        regarding statements Gaines and Clemons had made to others
        while in juvenile detention that established Moore’s innocence.
USCA11 Case: 22-14207      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14207

              On March 22, 2011, the state post-conviction court con-
        ducted an evidentiary hearing on Moore’s newly-discovered evi-
        dence claim. Moore called several witnesses who testified that they
        were incarcerated with Clemons and Gaines, and that Clemons and
        Gaines made statements to them indicating that Moore had not
        been involved in Parrish’s murder.
               The State called Gaines, who maintained that he testified
        truthfully at trial, and he denied ever telling anyone that Moore
        was innocent. On cross-examination, Gaines admitted that years
        after the trial, he had told a defense investigator that he and
        Clemons chased Little Terry, but he still insisted that they did not
        have a gun. When asked if the chase was the same day as the mur-
        der, Gaines testified, “I can’t recall.”
               Following the evidentiary hearing, on April 6, 2011, Moore
        moved to amend his third post-conviction motion to add the Giglio
        claim that gives rise to the instant § 2254 petition based on Gaines’s
        state post-conviction evidentiary hearing testimony with respect to
        the Little Terry chase. Moore argued that Gaines’s post-conviction
        testimony revealed that he had been lying at trial about the Little
        Terry incident. The state post-conviction court ultimately denied
        his third post-conviction motion, including this claim. After ap-
        peal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed. Moore v. State, 132 So.
        3d 718, 721 (Fla. 2013) (“Moore III”).
               As relevant to this appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida
        ruled that Moore had failed to establish a Giglio violation because
        Moore had not shown that Gaines’s trial testimony was false. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-14207         Document: 46-1         Date Filed: 02/21/2024         Page: 7 of 11

        22-14207                   Opinion of the Court                                7

        at 727. Moore could not make such a showing because the testi-
        mony at trial demonstrated that the evidence was in dispute as to
        whether Clemons or Gaines saw Little Terry on the day of the mur-
        der. Id. at 726-27. In addition, at the state post-conviction eviden-
        tiary hearing, Gaines testified that he and Clemons chased Little
        Terry, but still could not recall whether this occurred on the day of
        the murder. Id. at 727. Thus, Moore had not established falsity.
        Id. The Supreme Court of Florida also concluded that Moore failed
        to establish that the State knew that the testimony was false. Id. at
        726-27. It did not address whether Gaines’s testimony would have
        been material. See generally id.
               On September 17, 2014, Moore filed the instant amended §
        2254 petition raising a number of claims, including his Giglio claim,
        and on September 9, 2022, the district court denied the petition. It
        found Moore’s habeas petition, as a whole, was time-barred, 1 but
        it addressed the merits of his claims. As to his Giglio claim, the dis-
        trict court found the Supreme Court of Florida’s determination
        was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
        light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. It
        reasoned that Gaines’s trial testimony was not false because his ev-
        identiary hearing testimony did not materially contradict his trial
        testimony. It also denied the issuance of a COA. Moore appealed

        1 We assume without deciding that Moore’s Giglio claim was timely raised un-

        der 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 n.6
        (2005) (noting that § 2244(d)(1)(A) “provides one means of calculating the [stat-
        ute of] limitation[s] with regard to the ‘application’ as a whole . . . , but [§
        2244(d)(1)(B), (C), and (D)] require claim-by-claim consideration”).
USCA11 Case: 22-14207      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 8 of 11

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14207

        to this Court, and we granted Moore a COA on his Giglio claim as
        to Gaines.
            II.   STANDARDS OF REVIEW
                “We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas cor-
        pus petition.” Broadnax v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 996 F.3d 1215,
        1222 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1155 (11th
        Cir. 2010)). However, our review of the state court’s resolution of
        habeas claims is significantly curtailed. Under the Antiterrorism
        and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we can only
        provide a habeas petitioner habeas relief if “his claim is meritorious
        and the state court’s resolution of that claim was contrary to, or an
        unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court
        precedent, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the
        facts presented in the state court proceeding.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C.
        § 2254(d)). This highly deferential standard was “meant” to be “dif-
        ficult to meet,” and “stops short of imposing a complete bar on fed-
        eral-court relitigation of claims already rejected in state proceed-
        ings.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011) (emphasis
        added) (citation omitted).
                We presume the state’s factual determination is correct, and
        the petitioner must rebut this presumption by clear and convincing
        evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A state court’s factual determina-
        tion is only unreasonable if no fair-minded jurist could agree with
        that determination. Holsey v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 694
        F.3d 1230, 1257 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101).
        Thus, a state court’s factual determination is not unreasonable
USCA11 Case: 22-14207       Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024      Page: 9 of 11

        22-14207                Opinion of the Court                          9

        simply because we “would have reached a different conclusion in
        the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010) (citation
        omitted). In short, AEDPA demands that we give state court deci-
        sions “the benefit of the doubt.” Ventura v. Att’y Gen., Fla., 419 F.3d
        1269, 1285 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649,
        655 (2004)).
           III.    DISCUSSION
                The standard of review set forth in AEDPA bars Moore from
        relief on his Giglio claim because the district court properly deter-
        mined that the state court’s adjudication of the claim was not based
        on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. §
        2254(d)(2). Moore argues the district court erred in concluding that
        Moore did not prove Gaines’s trial testimony to be false. He fur-
        ther argues that the district court erred in finding the testimony
        was not material. We disagree.
                “A Giglio violation occurs when the prosecution solicits or
        fails to correct false or perjured testimony” that could, “‘in any rea-
        sonable likelihood have aﬀected the judgment of the jury.’” Rodri-
        guez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 756 F.3d 1277, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014)
        (quoting Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-54)). To succeed on a Giglio claim,
        a petitioner must show: “(1) the prosecutor knowingly used per-
        jured testimony or failed to correct what he subsequently learned
        was false testimony; and (2) such use was material, i.e., that there
        is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could . . . have
        aﬀected the judgment.” Guzman v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr., 663 F.3d
        1336, 1348 (quoting Ford v. Hall, 546 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 22-14207      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-14207

        2008)). When presenting a Giglio-based claim on federal habeas re-
        view, a petitioner must also establish that the error was not harm-
        less. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). An error is
        harmless on collateral review unless it had a “substantial and inju-
        rious eﬀect or inﬂuence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Guz-
        man, 663 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637-38).
               Applying these standards to Moore’s claim, Moore failed to
        show that Gaines’s testimony regarding the Little Terry chase was
        false during Moore’s trial. At trial, when defense counsel asked
        Gaines if he had seen Little Terry the day of the murder, Gaines
        replied, “Not that I can remember.” At the evidentiary hearing,
        Gaines testified that he had told a defense investigator that he had
        chased Little Terry, but when asked if that chase was the same day
        as the murder, Gaines stated, “I can’t recall.”
                Our case law requires Moore to conclusively show that
        Gaines’s testimony “was actually false.” See Maharaj v. Sec’y for
        Dep’t of Corr., 432 F.3d 1292, 1313 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omit-
        ted) (explaining that in the Giglio context, a suggestion of falsity is
        not enough; rather, the defendant must prove the testimony was
        false). While some might question the full veracity of Gaines’s tes-
        timony, we cannot say that “no ‘fairminded jurist’ could agree”
        with the Supreme Court of Florida’s factual determination that
        Moore failed to show that Gaines’s trial testimony was false. See
        Holsey, 694 F.3d at 1257 (quoting Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101).
        Thus, the Supreme Court of Florida’s determination was not un-
        reasonable and is entitled to deference. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
USCA11 Case: 22-14207     Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024    Page: 11 of 11

        22-14207               Opinion of the Court                       11

               Because Moore failed to show that Gaines’s trial testimony
        was false, we decline to reach the second element of his Giglio
        claim, i.e., whether the testimony was material.
           IV.     CONCLUSION
                For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s de-
        nial of Moore’s habeas petition.
                 AFFIRMED.