United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
D. WHITTEMORE JUDGE
a Florida inmate filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2012 conviction
for robbery with a firearm in Hillsborough County, Florida .
(Dkt. 1), which Respondent opposes (Dkt. 6). Upon
consideration, the petition is DENIED.
was charged with robbery with a firearm (Respondent's Ex.
1, Vol. V, record pp. 194-97). Before trial, Petitioner filed a
motion to suppress Deputy William Sims' out-of-court and
in-court identification of him(Id., Vol. I, record
pp. 28-34). The motion was denied after an evidentiary
hearing (Id., Vol. IV). Petitioner was found guilty
of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to life as a prison
release reoffender (Id., Vol. I, record p. 79;
appeal, his appellate counsel filed an Anders brief,
concluding that there was no . meritorious basis for a claim
of significant reversible error (Respondent's Ex. 2). The
state appellate court affirmed without discussion
(Respondent's Ex. 6); Conner v. State, 136 So.3d
599 (Fla. 2d DC A 2014) [table]. Thereafter, Petitioner filed
a petition in the appellate court alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel (Respondent's Ex. 11).
That court denied the petition (Respondent's Ex. 13). In
his federal habeas petition, Petitioner raises a single
ground for relief:
Appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that
the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his
motion to suppress the out-of-court and any in-court
identification of him by Deputy Sims.
of Review Under the AEDPA
relief can only be granted if a petitioner is in custody
"in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Section
2254(d), which sets forth a highly deferential standard for
federal court review of a state court adjudication, provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim-
(1) 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;
(2) 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.
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000), the
Supreme Court interpreted this deferential standard:
In sum, § 2254(d)(1) places a new constraint on the
power of a federal habeas court to grant a state
prisoner's application for a writ of habeas corpus with
respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court.
Under § 2254(d)(1), the writ may issue only if one of
the following two conditions is satisfied-the state-court
adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) "was
contrary to . . . clearly established Federal Law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or
(2) "involved an unreasonable application of. . .
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States." 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 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 ...