United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
ANTOON II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Caceres-Abreu ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition," Doc. 1) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging two related claims.
Respondents filed a Response to the Petition
("Response," Doc. 12) as well as an Amended
Response (Doc. 23), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the
Response. (Doc. 27). For the following reasons, the Petition
is due to be denied.
amended information the state of Florida charged Petitioner
with conspiracy to traffic in twenty-eight grams or more of
heroin (Count One) and two counts of trafficking in
twenty-eight grams or more of heroin (Counts Three and
Four). (Doc. 24-1 at 65-67). Petitioner entered a
no contest plea to the counts as charged and in exchange, the
State agreed to seek a twenty-year sentence. (Id. at
107-08). The trial judge sitting in Florida's Ninth
Judicial Circuit sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of
twenty years imprisonment. (Doc. 24-2 at 3-13). Petitioner
appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal ("Fifth
DCA") affirmed per curiam. (Doc. 24-4 at 34).
filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule
3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he
alleged three claims. (Id. at 37-58). The trial
court summarily denied relief. (Id. at 61-65).
Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth DCA affirmed per
curiam. (Doc. 24-5 at 2).
subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with
the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in Polk County, Florida
where he was incarcerated. (Doc. 27-1 at 3-16). That court
dismissed the petition (Id. at 18), and Petitioner
did not appeal. Petitioner also filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus with the trial court (Doc. 24-5 at 9-22), which
the judge summarily denied. (Id. at 25). Petitioner
appealed, and the Fifth DCA affirmed per curiam.
(Id. at 76).
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.
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/7 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." Makaraj v. Sec'yfor Dep't of
Corr., 432 F.3d 1292, 1308 (11th Cir. 2005).
Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal court may
grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion
opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme Court]
on a question of law or if the state court decides a case
differently than [the United States Supreme Court] has on a
set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the
'unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas
court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the
correct governing legal principle from [the United States
Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that
principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.
529 U.S. at 413. Even if the federal court concludes that the
state court applied federal law incorrectly, habeas relief is
appropriate only if that application was "objectively
unreasonable." Parker v. Head,244 F.3d 831,
835 (11th Cir. 2001), citing Williams, 529 U.S. at
410. Whether a state court's decision was an unreasonable
application of law must be assessed in light ...