United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I.
Status
Petitioner,
an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this case by
filing a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). He challenges his 2012
state court (Putnam County) judgments of conviction for
dealing in stolen property (No. 10-2513-CF); burglary of an
unoccupied dwelling, grand theft from a dwelling, and
obstructing an officer without violence (No. 11-1575-CF);
burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and criminal mischief (No.
11-1635-CF); attempted burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and
criminal mischief (No. 11-1636-CF); dealing in stolen
property and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling (No.
11-1637-CF); and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and
dealing in stolen property (No. 11-1639-CF). Petitioner was
sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 15 years.
Respondents filed a Response to Petition (Doc. 6) and
Exhibits (Doc. 7). Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
file a reply but never did. See Orders (Docs. 5, 8,
13). The case is ripe for review.[1]
II.
Governing Legal Principles
A.
Standard of Review
The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) governs
a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition.
See Ledford v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic &
Classification Prison, 818 F.3d 600, 642 (11th
Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1432 (2017).
“‘The purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal
habeas relief functions as a guard against extreme
malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, and not
as a means of error correction.'” Id.
(quoting Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 38 (2011)).
Under AEDPA, when a state court has adjudicated the
petitioner's claim on the merits, a federal court may not
grant habeas relief unless the state court's decision was
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States, ” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding, ” id. §
2254(d)(2). A state court's factual findings are presumed
correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[]
Id. § 2254(e)(1); Ferrell v. Hall, 640
F.3d 1199, 1223 (11th Cir. 2011).
AEDPA “imposes a highly deferential standard for
evaluating state court rulings” and “demands that
state-court decisions be given the benefit of the
doubt.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773
(2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A state
court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes
federal habeas relief so long as fairminded jurists could
disagree on the correctness of the state court's
decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,
101 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It
bears repeating that even a strong case for relief does not
mean the state court's contrary conclusion was
unreasonable.” Id. [at 102] (citing
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003)). The
Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed lower federal courts
that an unreasonable application of law requires more than
mere error or even clear error. See, e.g.,
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12');">540 U.S. 12, 18 (2003);
Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75 (“The gloss of clear
error fails to give proper deference to state courts by
conflating error (even clear error) with
unreasonableness.”); Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. 362, 410 (2000) (“[A]n unreasonable application of
federal law is different from an incorrect application of
federal law.”).
Bishop v. Warden, GDCP, 726 F.3d 1243, 1253-54 (11th
Cir. 2013) (internal citations modified).
“[A]
federal court reviewing the judgment of a state court must
first identify the last adjudication on the merits. It does
not matter whether that adjudication provided a reasoned
opinion because section 2254(d) ‘refers only to a
decision' and does not ‘requir[e] a statement of
reasons.'” Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic
Prison, 834 F.3d 1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Richter, 562 U.S. at 98), cert. granted,
137 S.Ct. 1203 (2017). Regardless of whether the last state
court provided a reasoned opinion, “it may be presumed
that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in
the absence of any indication or state-law procedural
principles to the contrary.” Richter, 562 U.S.
at 99 (citation omitted). When the last adjudication on the
merits “‘is unaccompanied by an explanation,
' a petitioner's burden under section 2254(d) is to
‘show[] there was no reasonable basis for the state
court to deny relief.'” Wilson, 834 F.3d
at 1235 (quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 98).
“‘[A] habeas court must determine what arguments
or theories supported or . . . could have supported, the
state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it
is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those
arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a
prior decision of [the] Court.'” Id.
(quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 102).
When the reasoning of the state trial court was reasonable,
there is necessarily at least one reasonable basis on which
the state supreme court could have denied relief and our
inquiry ends. In this way, federal courts can use previous
opinions as evidence that the relevant state court decision
under review is reasonable. But the relevant state court
decision for federal habeas review remains the last
adjudication on the merits, and federal courts are not
limited to assessing the reasoning of the lower court.
Id. at 1239.[2]
B.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
“The
Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the effective
assistance of counsel. That right is denied when a defense
attorney's performance falls below an objective standard
of reasonableness and thereby prejudices the defense.”
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003) (per
curiam) (citing Wiggins ...