Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11718
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-01400-MMH-MCR
SIMON A. SANCHEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 25, 2020)
Before BRANCH, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 2 of 8
Simon A. Sanchez, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, challenges the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on the ground that his trial
counsel’s performance was deficient. On appeal, he argues that the district court
erred because his trial counsel’s performance was deficient when he failed to
object to a set of jury instructions that were allegedly confusing, presumptive, and
conclusory.
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition, we review
questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. Pardo v. Sec’y, Fla.
Dep’t of Corr.,
587 F.3d 1093, 1098 (11th Cir. 2009). Appellate review is limited
to the issues specified in the COA. Grossman v. McDonough,
466 F.3d 1325,
1335 (11th Cir. 2006). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), there is a “highly
deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and [it] demands that state-
court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Renico v. Lett,
559 U.S. 766,
773 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, we review the district court’s
decision de novo but review the state court’s decision with deference. Reed v.
Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,
593 F.3d 1217, 1239 (11th Cir. 2010).
A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus for a state prisoner
where the claim was adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state
court’s decision:
2
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 3 of 8
(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; or
(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 question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court
believes the state court’s determination was incorrect but whether that
determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.” Schriro v.
Landrigan,
550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007). Section 2254(d) “preserves authority to
issue the writ [of habeas corpus] in cases where there is no possibility fairminded
jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with [Supreme Court]
precedents.”
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102.
A state court decision can be contrary to established law in two ways: “(1) it
applies a rule contradicting the governing law as set forth by Supreme Court case
law, or (2) the state court, in a case with facts indistinguishable from those in a
decision of the Supreme Court, arrives at a different result.” Washington v.
Crosby,
324 F.3d 1263, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003). A state court decision represents an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if the state court
correctly identifies the governing legal rule from Supreme Court cases but
unreasonably applies it to the facts of a case.
Id. The “unreasonable application”
inquiry requires that the state court decision “be more than incorrect or
3
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 4 of 8
erroneous”—it must be “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S.
63, 75 (2003). Even if the federal court concludes that the state court applied
federal law incorrectly, relief is appropriate only if that application is also
objectively unreasonable. Bell v. Cone,
535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). A petitioner
must show that the state court’s ruling “was so lacking in justification that there
was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any
possibility for fairminded disagreement.” White v. Woodall,
572 U.S. 415, 419-20
(2014).
A state court’s factual determination is generally entitled to a presumption of
correctness, and the applicant has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear
and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A state court’s factual
determination is unreasonable if no fairminded jurist could agree with that
determination. Holsey v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison,
694 F.3d 1230, 1257
(11th Cir. 2012).
A state court’s summary, unexplained rejection of a constitutional issue
qualifies as an adjudication that is entitled to deference.
Harrington, 562 U.S. at
98-99. For § 2254(d) to apply, the state court is required only to reject a claim on
the merits, not to provide an explanation or statement of reasons. See
Harrington,
562 U.S. at 98-99. A federal habeas court deciding whether a state court’s decision
involved an unreasonable application of federal law or was based on an
4
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 5 of 8
unreasonable determination of fact within the meaning of AEDPA, when the
relevant state-court decision on the merits does not come accompanied with
reasons for its decision, should “look through” the unexplained 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. Wilson v. Sellers,
138
S. Ct. 1188, 1192-97 (2018).
The Constitution provides criminal defendants the right to effective
assistance of counsel. U.S. Const., amend. VI;
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 684-86. To
demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show that: (1) his
counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and
(2) there is a reasonable probability that the proceeding’s result would have been
different, but for his counsel’s ineffective assistance. Chandler v. United States,
218 F.3d 1305, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We engage in a “highly
deferential” review of counsel’s performance.
Id. at 1314 (internal quotations
omitted). It is presumed that a petitioner’s counsel acted competently, and the
petitioner must prove that his attorney’s representation was unreasonable under
prevailing professional norms.
Id. at 1314 n.15. “[A] petitioner must establish that
no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did take.”
Id. at
1315. In order to prevent the effects of hindsight, a court must analyze an
attorney’s action from the perspective that the attorney would have had when he
5
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 6 of 8
took the action.
Id. at 1316.
Prejudice is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694. A reasonable probability is one sufficient to undermine confidence in
the outcome.
Id. It is not enough for the defendant to show that the error had
some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.
Id. at 693. Rather, he
must show that the result would have been different.
Id.
When the deferential standard of Strickland is combined with the deferential
standard of the AEDPA, the result is a doubly deferential standard of review in
federal court.
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105. “It was meant to be, and is, difficult
for a petitioner to prevail under that stringent standard.” Nance v. Warden, Ga.
Diagnostic Prison,
922 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2019).
A jury instruction that is incorrect under state law is not a basis for habeas
relief. Estelle v. McGuire,
502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991). The only determination that
a federal court can make regarding allegedly incorrect state jury instructions is
“whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting
conviction violates due process.”
Id. at 72. “It is well established that the
instruction may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be considered in the
context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.”
Id. (internal quotations
omitted). “In addition, . . . [federal courts] inquire whether there is a reasonable
6
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 7 of 8
likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates
the Constitution.”
Id. (internal quotations omitted). Our inquiry will not focus on
“whether the challenged instructions were undesirable, erroneous, or even
universally condemned.” Jamerson v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr.,
410 F.3d 682, 690
(11th Cir. 2005).
Here, the district court properly denied Sanchez’s § 2254 petition because he
failed to show that the state appellate court unreasonably applied clearly
established federal law or relied on an unreasonable determination of the facts
when it denied his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d). Procedurally, we must defer to the state postconviction court’s decision
regarding Sanchez’s July 2012 Rule 3.850 motion.
Wilson, 138 S. Ct. at 1192-97.
Substantively, Sanchez failed to establish that Nolan’s performance was
deficient when he failed to object to the challenged jury instruction. To the extent
that Sanchez argues the allegedly defective jury instruction violated state law, we
cannot grant him federal habeas relief.
Estelle, 502 U.S. at 71-72. Although the
challenged instruction arguably was worded in a confusing manner, that wording,
alone, is not enough to show that that it “infected the entire trial” and that
Sanchez’s conviction violated due process.
Id. The jury instructions, viewed as a
whole, provided the jury with three options to determine whether Sanchez used a
weapon. Moreover, the instruction’s included definitions of what constitutes a
7
Case: 19-11718 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 8 of 8
“weapon” and a “deadly weapon,” further correcting any confusion the allegedly
deficient instruction might have caused. The single instruction that Sanchez
challenges did not prevent the jury from understanding how to define a deadly
weapon, thereby preventing a violation of his due process rights.
Estelle, 502 U.S.
at 71-72. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
8
