United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
DALTON JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Petition”) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. 1). Thereafter, Respondents filed a
Response to the Petition (Doc. 18) in accordance with this
Court's instructions. Petitioner filed a Reply to the
Response (Doc. 20).
alleges one claim for relief in the Petition. For the
following reasons, the Petition is denied.
was charged in state court case number 2001-CF-20404 with
robbery and in state court case number 2001-CF-32732 with
solicitation to commit first degree murder (Doc. 18-1 at 5-6,
18). On August 13, 2002, Petitioner pled guilty to the
offenses as charged. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to
a ten-year term of imprisonment for the robbery conviction,
followed by a ten-year term of probation, and a concurrent
five-year term of probation for the solicitation conviction.
Id. at 8-14, 20-25. Petitioner did not appeal.
was released from prison on October 27, 2010. On May 28,
2013, an affidavit for violation of probation
(“VOP”) was filed. Id. at 36-41. The
trial court held a VOP hearing on November 21, 2013, and
found that Petitioner had willfully violated his probation.
Id. at 94-95. The trial court sentenced Petitioner
to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment on the robbery
conviction and a consecutive five-year term of imprisonment
on the solicitation conviction followed by two years of
community control and five years of probation. Id.
at 96, 106-21. Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth District
Court of Appeal (“Fifth DCA”) affirmed per
curiam. Id. at 141.
filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule
3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Id. at 145-61. The trial court summarily denied the
motion. Id. at 163-66. The Fifth DCA affirmed
per curiam. Id. at 189.
Standard of Review Under the Antiterrorism Effective Death
Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)
to the AEDPA, federal habeas relief may not be granted with
respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court
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.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The phrase “clearly
established Federal law, ” encompasses only the
holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the
time of the relevant state-court decision.”
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000).
2254(d)(1) provides two separate bases for reviewing state
court decisions; the ‘contrary to' and
‘unreasonable application' clauses articulate
independent considerations a federal court must
consider.” Maharaj v. Sec'y for Dep't of
Corr., 432 F.3d 1292, 1308 (11th Cir. 2005). The meaning
of the clauses was ...