Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12034
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00074-WSD
FREDERICK R. WHATLEY,
Petitioner-Appellee
Cross Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC
AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER,
Respondent-Appellant
Cross Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN,
JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT,
LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
A petition for rehearing having been filed and a member of this Court in
active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by
the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in active service on this
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 2 of 10
Court having voted against granting a rehearing en banc, it is ORDERED that this
case will not be reheard en banc.
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 3 of 10
MARTIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:
Frederick R. Whatley is a prisoner on death row in Georgia. A panel of the
court denied his federal habeas petition. Whatley v. Warden,
927 F.3d 1150 (11th
Cir. 2019). I asked the full court to rehear Mr. Whatley’s case en banc, because I
believe the panel opinion applied the wrong legal standard in deciding whether,
under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),1 to defer to the Georgia Supreme Court’s denial of Mr.
Whatley’s claim that his counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his
trial. This court is bound by the rule pronounced by the Supreme Court in Wilson
v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___,
138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018), as well as our own precedent in
Meders v. Warden,
911 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2019). This precedent requires our
court to review “the specific reasons given by the state court” for denying the
petitioner’s claim “and defer[] to those reasons if they are reasonable.” Wilson,
138 S. Ct. at 1192; see also Meders, 911 F.3d at 1349. The panel’s analysis in
Whatley conflicts with this precedent by suggesting that federal courts may look
beyond the reasons a state court gives for denying habeas relief. See 927 F.3d at
1182. I believe this court should hear this case en banc, in order to fix the panel’s
departure from established law, and make clear the standard for assessing the
reasonableness of a state court’s rationale, which limits us to the specific reasons
1
This statute is a part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I
refer to it as AEDPA.
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 4 of 10
given by the court. I dissent from the court’s decision to let the Whatley panel
opinion stand.
Whatley begins by correctly articulating the § 2254(d) analysis:
When a district court reviews a state court’s decision under AEDPA, it
must first consider the claim as it was presented to the state court. Next,
it considers the state court’s decision. If the state court applied the
correct Supreme Court precedent . . . the district court decides whether
the state court applied the Supreme Court precedent unreasonably. The
district court also considers whether the state court’s decision was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
Whatley, 927 F.3d at 1181 (citations omitted). However, at three points in its
analysis, the Whatley opinion suggests that the actual reasons a state court
gives for denying habeas relief play a minimal role in the federal habeas
court’s decision to defer to the state court’s ruling. First, Whatley says “under
[§ 2254(d)], we’re most concerned with the reviewing [state] court’s ultimate
conclusion, not the quality of its written opinion.” Id. at 1177 (quotation
marks omitted). It continues by saying “our review is not limited to the
reasons the [state] Court gave in its analysis.” Id. at 1178. Third, it says “we
are not limited to the reasons the [state] Court gave and instead focus on its
ultimate conclusion.” Id. at 1182 (quotation marks omitted). The Whatley
opinion concludes its recitation of the legal standard by saying this Court
“must ‘determine what arguments or theories could have supported the state
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 5 of 10
court’s decision.’” Id. (first emphasis added and alteration adopted) (quoting
Harrington v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86, 102,
131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011)).
These statements conflict with precedent that binds federal judges in
deciding the extent to which we defer to a state court’s decision during our review
of those decisions on federal habeas review. See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The
Supreme Court set the rule that must govern our § 2254(d) deference analysis in
Wilson v. Sellers,
138 S. Ct. 1188, and this Court applied that rule in Meders v.
Warden,
911 F.3d 1335. Neither Wilson nor Meders is cited anywhere in the
Whatley opinion.
Section 2254(d) bars federal courts from issuing a writ of habeas corpus to a
state prisoner on any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court 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” or “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). Section
2254(d) sets a high (although not insurmountable) bar. Williams v. Taylor,
529
U.S. 362, 402–13,
120 S. Ct. 1495, 1518–23 (2000). Where the last state court to
address the prisoner’s claims issued a reasoned decision, the Supreme Court tells
us that the deference analysis is a “straightforward inquiry.” Wilson,
138 S. Ct. at
1192. We are to “simply review[] the specific reasons given by the state court and
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 6 of 10
defer[] to those reasons if they are reasonable.”
Id. “Deciding whether a state
court’s decision involved an unreasonable application of federal law or was based
on an unreasonable determination of fact requires the federal habeas court to train
its attention on the particular reasons—both legal and factual—why the state courts
rejected a state prisoner’s federal claims.”
Id. at 1191–92 (quotation marks
omitted).
The deference analysis set forth in Whatley cannot be squared with the
Supreme Court’s rule stated in Wilson. Indeed, Whatley makes no effort to square
them. Yet, Wilson made clear that it is not proper for federal judges to try and
come up with any rationale that could have supported the state court’s decision.
Instead, we must defer to the specific reasons given by the state court, so we must,
in turn, focus on the particular reasons the state court gave.
I recognize that Wilson was decided in a different procedural posture than
that presented by Mr. Whatley’s case.2 But that does not change Wilson’s mandate
that our court’s decision about whether to give AEPDA deference to a state court
2
Wilson held that federal courts “should ‘look through’ [an] unexplained [state court]
decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale” and then
“presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.”
138 S. Ct. at 1192.
Federal courts must decide whether to defer based on the reasons given by the last state court to
issue a reasoned decision.
Id. at 1195–96. Here, the last state court to address Mr. Whatley’s
claims was the Georgia Supreme Court, so there is no need to rely on Wilson’s “look through”
presumption. See generally Whatley v. Terry,
668 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 2008).
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 7 of 10
ruling must be based on the reasons the state court gave, as opposed to whatever
reason a federal court can come up with.
The Whatley opinion also ignores this Court’s precedent that reinforces the
Wilson analysis. Since Wilson, this court has consistently looked to the specific
reasons the last reasoned state-court decision gave and examined whether those
reasons merit AEDPA deference. See, e.g., Meders, 911 F.3d at 1349 (“Deciding
whether a state court’s decision involved an unreasonable application of federal
law requires the federal habeas court to train its attention on the particular
reasons—both legal and factual—why state courts rejected a state prisoner’s
federal claims, and to give appropriate deference to that decision.” (citation
omitted and alteration adopted)); see also Hawthorne v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 786
F. App’x 896, 899 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“Wilson informs
our analysis.”); Junes v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 778 F. App’x 639, 641 (11th Cir.
2019) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“The district court must consider the particular
factual and legal reasons that the state court rejected the prisoner’s federal
claims.”); Johnson v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 737 F. App’x 438, 441 (11th Cir.
2018) (per curiam) (unpublished) (explaining standard set forth in Wilson v.
Sellers). Our prior precedent rule required the Whatley panel to follow Meders.
See United States v. Archer,
531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior
panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 8 of 10
or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court
sitting en banc.”). But it did not.
I agree with the Whatley opinion when it says the Georgia Supreme Court
did not have to walk through every step of a “hypothetical retrial” of Mr.
Whatley’s penalty phase. Whatley, 927 F.3d at 1182. It is not my purpose to
suggest the Georgia court must take this walk. I know that Wilson does not mean
that federal judges must (or even may) “flyspeck” the state court decision. Meders,
911 F.3d at 1349. But it does mean that “we are to focus not merely on the bottom
line ruling of the decision but on the reasons, if any, given for it.” Id. The
Whatley majority said it was not required to do as Meders instructs. Thus, it
promotes an incorrect statement of law.
The Whatley majority looks mainly to Harrington v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86,
131 S. Ct. 770 (2011), and Gill v. Mecusker,
633 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2011). See
927 F.3d at 1182. But Richter never advocates that federal judges look only to the
state court’s resolution of the case, as opposed to its reasoning. In Richter, the
Supreme Court held that AEDPA deference applies even when the state court gives
no reasons for its decision.
562 U.S. at 98,
131 S. Ct. at 784 (“Where a state
court’s decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner’s
burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state
court to deny relief.”). Nevertheless, Richter does not tell us to look beyond the
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 9 of 10
reasons the state court actually gave. Nor does it license federal judges to invent
any reason that could support the state court’s resolution of the case. Rather, it
established a presumption that a state court adjudicated a claim on the merits when
it gives no other reason for its decision.
Id. at 98–99,
131 S. Ct. at 784–85.
Richter recognized that this “presumption may be overcome when there is reason
to think some other explanation for the state court’s decision is more likely.”
Id. at
99–100,
131 S. Ct. at 785 (citing Ylst v. Nunnemaker,
501 U.S. 797, 803,
111 S.
Ct. 2590, 2594 (1991)). In Wilson, the Court reiterated that this presumption is
overcome where an earlier state court decision sets forth reasons.
138 S. Ct. at
1195–96. Wilson told us we must presume the unexplained state court decision
relied on the same rationale as the last reasoned opinion, absent some reason to
think otherwise.
Id. And it told us to look to the reasons the state court gave, not
those we think up ourselves.
Id. Finally, if it is true that Gill reads Richter as
requiring us to focus on the state court’s conclusion to the exclusion of its
rationale, see Gill,
633 F.3d at 1290–91, then Gill has been “undermined to the
point of abrogation by the Supreme Court,” because of the Wilson decision. See
Archer,
531 F.3d at 1352.
I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc because as written, Whatley
contains an incorrect statement of law. I believe the Whatley opinion requires our
en banc court to make clear that this court’s evaluation of the reasonableness of the
Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 10 of 10
Georgia Supreme Court’s rationale in denying Mr. Whatley relief must be limited
to the specific reasons that court gave, and that it is improper for our court to
supply its own. I dissent from the court’s vote declining to rehear Mr. Whatley’s
case.
