United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
DALTON JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on an amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed by Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. 7). Respondents filed a response to the
amended petition in compliance with this Court's
instructions and with the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases for the United States District Courts. (Doc. 15).
Petitioner filed a reply to the response (Doc. 18).
alleges two claims for relief in his amended habeas
petition. For the following reasons, the amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
was charged, along with several other co-defendants, with
armed trafficking in 400 grams or more of cocaine (count
one), conspiracy to traffic in cocaine (count two),
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count eight),
unlawful use of a two-way communications device to facilitate
the commission of a crime (count thirteen), possession of
drug paraphernalia (count fifteen), and possession of
cannabis (count sixteen) (Doc. 16-1 at 165-73). Petitioner
filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained, arguing the
search was based on an invalid search warrant. Id. at
185-204. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the
motion to suppress, after which it denied the motion.
Id. at 9-74.
entered a nolo contendere plea to the charged counts and
reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to
suppress. Id. at 79-95. The trial court sentenced
Petitioner to concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment for
counts one, two and eight, to be followed by fifteen-year
terms of probation, to a concurrent five-year term of
imprisonment for count thirteen, and to time served for
counts fifteen and sixteen (Doc. 16-2 at 48-63. Petitioner
appealed, and in his initial brief he challenged the denial
of his motion to suppress (Doc. 16-3 at 28-48). The Fifth
District Court of Appeal (“Fifth DCA”) affirmed
per curiam. Id. at 81.
filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule
3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. 16-4
at 11-41). The trial court summarily denied the motion.
Id. at 81-88. The Fifth DCA affirmed per
curiam (Doc. 16-5 at 42). Petitioner subsequently filed
a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. Id. at 54-67. The
Fifth DCA denied the petition without discussion (Doc. 16-6
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).
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 ...