Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13998
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-22100-FAM
SANTOS CORALES-CARRANZA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 10, 2019)
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 2 of 12
Santos Corales-Carranza, a Florida inmate, appeals pro se the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. Corales-Carranza was
convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Following
unsuccessful challenges to his convictions on direct appeal and in collateral
proceedings in the Florida state courts, Corales-Carranza filed a federal habeas
petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district
court denied Corales-Carranza’s petition with prejudice and denied him a
certificate of appealability. On appeal, Corales-Carranza’s motion for a certificate
of appealability was granted on his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
claim. Specifically, a certificate of appealability was granted on the following
question: “Whether the District Court erred in its resolution of Mr. Corales-
Carranza’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, with respect to
counsel’s failure to supplement his appeal after the issuance of State v.
Montgomery,
39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010).” 11th Cir. Doc. 14 at 3.
We affirm the district court’s denial of Corales-Carranza’s § 2254 petition as
to the sole claim he is authorized to raise on appeal. We conclude that Corales-
Carranza has failed to show that the Florida state habeas court unreasonably
applied Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984), in determining that his
2
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 3 of 12
appellate counsel’s performance was not ineffective. Therefore, Corales-Carranza
cannot demonstrate a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
I. BACKGROUND
The State of Florida charged Corales-Carranza by information with the
second-degree murder of Carlos Hernandez, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 782.04(2). At
trial, the State argued that Corales-Carranza murdered the victim by brutally
stabbing and beating him. During his trial testimony, Corales-Carranza conceded
that the victim had been murdered but asserted in his defense that he had not
committed the crime.
The trial court instructed the jury on second-degree murder and the lesser-
included offense of manslaughter-by-act. As to second-degree murder, the court
instructed the jury that “[i]n order to convict of second-degree murder it is not
necessary for the [S]tate to prove the defendant had intent to cause death.” Doc.
13-6 at 93. 1 As to manslaughter, the court read to the jury Florida’s 2006 standard
manslaughter-by-act jury instruction, which provided that the State had to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Carlos Hernandez was dead and (2) “Santos
Corales-Carranza intentionally caused the death of Carlos Hernandez.”
Id. The
jury found Corales-Carranza guilty of second-degree murder; he was sentenced to
40 years’ imprisonment.
1
“Doc #” refers to the numbered entries on the district court’s docket.
3
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 4 of 12
Corales-Carranza directly appealed his sentence to the Florida Third District
Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court had erred by failing to instruct the jury
on manslaughter-by-culpable-negligence as a freestanding, lesser-included offense,
or as part of the manslaughter instruction. Corales-Carranza filed his appellate
brief in December 2009. While his appeal remained pending, the Florida Supreme
Court held in State v. Montgomery,
39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010), that the use of
Florida’s 2006 standard manslaughter-by-act jury instruction constituted
fundamental error when manslaughter was a lesser-included offense of second-
degree murder because the instruction erroneously required the jury to find that the
defendant intended to cause the victim’s
death. 39 So. 3d at 259-60. Corales-
Carranza’s appellate counsel filed no supplemental brief challenging in light of
Montgomery the use of the 2006 standard manslaughter-by-act jury instruction.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Corales-Carranza’s conviction and
sentence in July 2010. See Corales-Carranza v. State,
41 So. 3d 226 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2010).
Proceeding pro se, Corales-Carranza filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the Third District Court of Appeal, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.141(c), based on his appellate counsel’s failure to argue on direct
appeal that the use at his trial of Florida’s 2006 standard manslaughter-by-act jury
instruction constituted fundamental error. The Third District Court of appeal
4
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 5 of 12
summarily denied the petition. See Corales-Carranza v. State,
49 So. 3d 1277
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010). Corales-Carranza then filed a motion for post-
conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in state
court, again proceeding pro se. The court denied the motion with prejudice. The
Third District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed. See Corales-Carranza v.
State,
190 So. 3d 643 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016).
Corales-Carranza filed a § 2254 petition in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. In this petition, he alleged at least two grounds
for habeas relief, including a claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to argue on direct appeal that the use of the 2006 standard manslaughter-by-
act instruction was fundamental error. A magistrate judge recommended that the
district court deny Corales-Carranza’s petition and deny him a certificate of
appealability. As to the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, the
magistrate judge concluded that Corales-Carranza had failed to show that the state
court unreasonably applied Strickland. Lacking any objection, the district court
adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Corales-Carranza’s
petition, and denied him a certificate of appealability.
Corales-Carranza was granted a certificate of appealability only on his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his appellate counsel’s failure to
supplement his appeal after the Florida Supreme Court issued Montgomery.
5
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 6 of 12
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the denial of a § 2254 habeas petition de novo and factual
findings for clear error. Sims v. Singletary,
155 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 1998).
“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact
which we review de novo.”
Id.
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Corales-Carranza argues that his appellate counsel performed
deficiently because counsel failed to supplement Corales-Carranza’s appeal with
an argument based on Montgomery. According to Corales-Carranza, he was
prejudiced by this deficient performance because had counsel supplemented his
appeal, he would have been placed in the Montgomery “pipeline.” 2 Appellant’s
Br. at 21. He thus argues that he is entitled to relief because the state habeas
court’s ruling on this issue was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of” Strickland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The State responds that
Corales-Carranza is entitled to no relief because he cannot show Strickland
prejudice when, at the time of his appeal, no Florida District Court of Appeal
decision had held that the use of the 2006 standard manslaughter-by-act jury
2
As we have described it in another opinion, “[t]he Florida ‘pipeline’ theory is one under
which certain decisions announcing a new rule of law are applied retrospectively to all appellants
whose appeals are not final at the time the new rule is announced.” Rambaran v. Sec’y, Dep’t of
Corr.,
821 F.3d 1325, 1330 n.5 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Mitchell v. Moore,
786 So. 2d 521, 530
n.8 (Fla. 2001)).
6
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 7 of 12
instruction constituted fundamental error when, as in Corales-Carranza’s case,
intent was not disputed at trial.
A state inmate may petition a federal court for habeas relief “only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a federal court is generally barred from
granting habeas relief to a petitioner in state custody on a claim that the state court
adjudicated on the merits unless the state court’s ruling (1) “was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established [f]ederal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the [s]tate court
proceeding.”
Id. § 2254(d)(l)-(2). When, as here, a state court summarily denies a
habeas claim, see Corales-Carranza v. State,
49 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2010), the denial is considered an adjudication on the merits for § 2254(d)(1)
purposes. Wright v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr.,
278 F.3d 1245, 1254 (11th Cir.
2002).
“‘Clearly established’ in § 2254(d)(1) refers to the holdings, as opposed to
the dicta, of the Supreme Court’s cases at the time of the relevant state court
decision.” Daniel v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr.,
822 F.3d 1248, 1258 (11th Cir.
2016) (second internal quotation marks omitted). “‘Contrary to’ means the state
7
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 8 of 12
court applied a rule different from the governing law set forth in Supreme Court
cases, or it decided a case differently than the Supreme Court has done on a set of
materially indistinguishable facts.”
Id. at 1258-59 (alterations adopted) (second
internal quotation marks omitted). “An ‘unreasonable application’ under
§ 2254(d)(1) occurs when a state court decision (1) identifies the correct governing
legal rule from the Supreme Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts
of the particular state prisoner’s case, or (2) either unreasonably extends a legal
principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context where it should not
apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it
should apply.”
Id. at 1259 (alterations adopted) (second and third internal
quotation marks omitted). “The ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry asks whether
the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively
unreasonable, which requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or
erroneous.”
Id. at 1259 (alterations adopted) (second and third internal quotation
marks omitted) (citation omitted). In sum, “AEDPA erects a formidable barrier to
federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state
court.”
Id. at 1260 (internal quotation marks omitted).
An ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is “governed by the
same standards applied to trial counsel under Strickland.” Brooks v. Comm’r, Ala.
Dep’t of Corr.,
719 F.3d 1292, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
8
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 9 of 12
omitted). To show a meritorious Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) deficient performance,
indicating that the attorney failed to function as required by the Sixth Amendment;
and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner.
Strickland,
466 U.S. at 687.
“Under the first prong, [the petitioner] must show that his direct appellate
counsel’s performance ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’”
Brooks, 719 F.3d at 1300 (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). There exists “a
strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Further,
“[a]ppellate counsel has no duty to raise every non-frivolous issue and may
reasonably weed out weaker (albeit meritorious) arguments.” Overstreet v.
Warden,
811 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2016). “Under Strickland’s second prong,
[the petitioner] must show that there ‘is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.’”
Brooks, 719 F.3d at 1300 (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). “A
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “‘The standards created by
Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the two apply in
tandem, review is doubly so.’”
Overstreet, 811 F.3d at 1287 (quoting Harrington
9
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 10 of 12
v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011)). Under this “double deference,” then, “the
question becomes whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied
Strickland’s deferential standard.” Evans v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,
699 F.3d
1249, 1268 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying this double deference required by § 2254 and Strickland, we must
determine whether the Florida state habeas court acted “contrary to” or
unreasonably applied clearly established law when that court rejected Corales-
Carranza’s argument that his appellate counsel’s failure to supplement his direct
appeal with an argument based on Montgomery amounted to ineffective assistance.
Here, with regard to the deficient performance prong of Strickland, a
competent attorney reasonably might have concluded that the use of the 2006
manslaughter-by-act jury instruction failed to constitute fundamental error in
Corales-Carranza’s case. By the time Corales-Carranza brought his appeal, the
Florida Supreme Court had made clear that the use of a jury instruction containing
an inaccurately defined element constitutes fundamental error only when the
inaccurately defined element is disputed. Reed v. State,
837 So. 2d 366, 369 (Fla.
2002). Further, at the time of Corales-Carranza’s appeal, the Florida Supreme
Court had held that “a dispute [as to an element of an offense] does not arise when
mistaken identity is the sole defense and the facts of the crime are conceded by the
defendant.” Battle v. State,
911 So. 2d 85, 89 (Fla. 2005). Corales-Carranza
10
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 11 of 12
conceded in his testimony that the victim had been murdered but raised a
misidentification defense by claiming that someone else had committed the crime.
Appellate counsel reasonably might have concluded that Corales-Carranza thus
failed to dispute intent at trial and that the use of the manslaughter-by-act jury
instruction, which erroneously stated the requisite intent, constituted no
fundamental error. Accordingly, counsel reasonably might have concluded that
Montgomery would afford Corales-Carranza no relief. We cannot conclude, then,
that the state court, in denying Corales-Carranza’s ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel claim, unreasonably applied Strickland. 3 Cf.
Harrington, 562
U.S. at 105 (“When § 2254(d) applies, the question is not whether counsel’s
actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument
that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.”).
We recognize that the Florida Supreme Court clarified in 2015 that “a sole
defense of misidentification does not concede or fail to place in dispute intent or
any other element of the crime charged except identity when the offense charged is
an unlawful homicide.” Griffin v. State,
160 So. 3d 63, 67 (Fla. 2015). But as
precedent instructs, in assessing whether counsel provided ineffective assistance,
this Court “must avoid the ‘distorting effects of hindsight’ by viewing the
3
We do not discuss the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis because “[f]ailure to
make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the
ineffectiveness claim.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700.
11
Case: 17-13998 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 12 of 12
performance as it appeared to counsel at the time.” Bolender v. Singletary,
16 F.3d
1547, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). We therefore
lack the benefit of Griffin in assessing whether the state court unreasonably applied
Strickland.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Corales-
Carranza’s habeas petition.
AFFIRMED.
12
