Court Opinion

ID: 9957928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 18:01:04.511145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:32.186932
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10671    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10671
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DENNIS L. MCCLOUD,
                                                   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. 3:19-cv-00591-MMH-JBT
USCA11 Case: 22-10671      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2024     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10671

                            ____________________

       Before GRANT, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Dennis McCloud, representing himself, appeals the district
       court’s denial of his petition for federal habeas corpus relief. He
       argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial
       because his lawyer didn’t challenge improper expert testimony
       about the credibility of a child witness or improper argument by
       the state prosecutor. After careful consideration, we affirm.
                                         I.
              In 2010, a Duval County, Florida jury found McCloud guilty
       of one count of sexual battery and one count of lewd or lascivious
       molestation related to minor victim D.M., and one count of lewd
       or lascivious exhibition related to minor victim A.O. The state cir-
       cuit court imposed sentences totaling life in prison. The state ap-
       pellate court affirmed McCloud’s convictions and sentences on di-
       rect appeal. McCloud v. State, 91 So. 3d 940 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
       2012). McCloud then filed motions for state postconviction relief,
       which were denied. As relevant to the claim before us, the state
       court of appeal summarily affirmed the denial of postconviction re-
       lief. McCloud v. State, 263 So. 3d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018).
              McCloud filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief pur-
       suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging among other things that his trial
       attorney was ineffective for failing to object when the State elicited
       expert testimony vouching for the credibility of D.M., one of the
USCA11 Case: 22-10671      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2024    Page: 3 of 7

       22-10671               Opinion of the Court                         3

       minor victims, and when the prosecutor vouched for D.M.’s truth-
       fulness in closing argument. The district court denied McCloud’s
       § 2254 petition. We granted McCloud a certificate of appealability
       on one issue: whether the district court erred by rejecting
       McCloud’s claim that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by
       failing to object to the state, and its witness, vouching for D.M.’s
       credibility.
                                        II.
               We review the district court’s denial of a federal habeas pe-
       tition de novo. Reed v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 593 F.3d 1217,
       1239 (11th Cir. 2010). Under § 2254, as amended by the Antiterror-
       ism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a federal court may
       not grant habeas relief on a claim that was adjudicated on the mer-
       its in state court proceedings unless the petitioner shows that the
       state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasona-
       ble application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by
       the Supreme Court of the United States;” or was “based on an un-
       reasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence pre-
       sented” in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “A state
       court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal ha-
       beas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the cor-
       rectness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562
       U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citation omitted).
                                        III.
              McCloud argues that his trial attorney provided ineffective
       assistance of counsel by failing to object when the State’s expert
USCA11 Case: 22-10671         Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 04/05/2024         Page: 4 of 7

       4                         Opinion of the Court                       22-10671

       witness testified that she did not believe D.M. was being truthful in
       her initial statement exonerating McCloud, and when the prosecu-
       tor separately vouched for D.M.’s veracity in her trial testimony
       (which inculpated McCloud) during closing arguments. To prove
       a Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a peti-
       tioner must demonstrate both that his counsel’s performance was
       objectively deficient and that he suffered prejudice as a result.
       Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To show preju-
       dice under this standard, he must demonstrate “a reasonable prob-
       ability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
       proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is
       a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
       Id. at 694.
              Both the state circuit court and the state court of appeal re-
       jected this claim on the merits in McCloud’s state postconviction
       proceedings. But neither state court clearly explained its reason-
       ing.1 Under the circumstances, we must determine what argu-
       ments “could have supported” the state court’s decision, and then
       “ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree” about

       1 The state circuit court denied the claim “[u]pon a review of the State’s Re-

       sponse, in conjunction with the record attachments provided with said Re-
       sponse.” But the state court did not indicate whether it was adopting the
       State’s response wholesale or whether it had other reasons for denying relief
       in addition to the State’s arguments, which addressed only the performance
       prong of the Strickland analysis. And the state court of appeal affirmed the
       denial of postconviction relief in a one-word opinion. McCloud v. State, 263 So.
       3d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018).
USCA11 Case: 22-10671      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/05/2024      Page: 5 of 7

       22-10671                Opinion of the Court                           5

       the correctness of that reasoning under relevant Supreme Court
       precedents. Richter, 562 U.S. at 102.
               It is possible, as the State argues in this Court, that the state
       court of appeal affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on the
       ground that the expert’s opinion on D.M.’s truthfulness and the
       prosecutor’s argument on the same theme in closing were permis-
       sible under Florida law. If so, we must accept that interpretation
       of relevant state law—“it is not the province of a federal habeas
       court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law ques-
       tions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). And if the tes-
       timony and argument were permissible under state law, then the
       state court could have reasonably determined that defense coun-
       sel’s failure to object was not objectively deficient performance un-
       der the Strickland standard. See Meders v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic
       Prison, 911 F.3d 1335, 1354 (11th Cir. 2019) (failure to make an ob-
       jection that will not be sustained is not ineffective assistance).
              Alternatively, the state appellate court may have affirmed on
       the ground that even if counsel’s performance was deficient,
       McCloud could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland be-
       cause no reasonable probability existed that the outcome of the
       trial would have been different if counsel had objected to the al-
       leged “vouching” and the objections had been sustained. See Strick-
       land, 466 U.S. at 687, 694. This rationale was not an unreasonable
       application of Strickland either.
              Even if the trial court had excluded the expert’s testimony
       directly commenting on D.M.’s truthfulness, plenty of other
USCA11 Case: 22-10671       Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/05/2024      Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                    22-10671

       evidence introduced at trial supported the jury’s conclusion that
       McCloud sexually abused D.M. D.M. admitted at trial that she had
       lied in her first interview with the Child Protection Team—when
       she denied that anyone had ever touched her private parts or made
       her touch their private parts—because she didn’t want to get
       McCloud in trouble. She also testified in detail about how
       McCloud sexually abused her, including on one occasion when her
       friend A.O. was present. This testimony was generally consistent
       with D.M.’s second interview with the Child Protection Team, in
       which she disclosed things that McCloud made her do to his “pri-
       vacy parts.”
              The State’s expert testified that during the first interview,
       D.M. was guarded, barely responding, upset, and frightened. The
       expert also testified that it is not unusual for a child to initially deny
       sexual abuse until the child feels more secure. Recordings of both
       interviews of D.M. were played for the jury, so that the jury had
       the opportunity to observe D.M.’s demeanor during those inter-
       views and at trial and decide which statement to believe.
               A.O. also testified at trial. She testified that she witnessed
       McCloud sexually abuse D.M., and her description of the abuse
       was entirely consistent with D.M.’s trial testimony. And finally,
       McCloud’s testimony that he was watching a movie with his wife
       during the time that A.O. and D.M. claimed he was molesting D.M.
       was undermined when the State called his wife in rebuttal and she
       denied his version of events. Given all this evidence of McCloud’s
       guilt, the state court could have reasonably concluded that even if
USCA11 Case: 22-10671       Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/05/2024       Page: 7 of 7

       22-10671                  Opinion of the Court                           7

       McCloud’s counsel had successfully objected to the State’s and the
       State’s expert’s commentary on D.M.’s truthfulness, there was no
       reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different
       verdict.
                                          IV.
               The district court did not err in rejecting McCloud’s claim
       that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object
       to testimony by the State’s expert and argument by the prosecutor
       vouching for D.M.’s credibility. We therefore affirm the denial of
       McCloud’s federal habeas petition.
                             2
              AFFIRMED.

       2
         McCloud has also filed a “Motion for Inquiry into Suspicious Matters,” in
       which he asks us to inquire whether someone “filed a fraudulent motion on
       [his] behalf.” Because we decide this case based only on McCloud’s and the
       Secretary’s certified briefs, the motion is DENIED.