Raymond Edward Kitchen v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections , 571 F. App'x 930 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-11274 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11274
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00237-LC-CJK
RAYMOND EDWARD KITCHEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 11, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11274 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 2 of 6
Raymond Edward Kitchen, a Florida state prisoner, appeals the district
court’s denial of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In his petition, Kitchen contends that the inadequacy of the court-appointed
interpreter at his jury trial rendered his trial unfair and violated his right to due
process under the U.S. Constitution. We issued a certificate of appealability on the
following two issues: “(1) Whether the district court erred when it found that
Kitchen failed to exhaust his instant claim in the state courts, thereby procedurally
defaulting it” and “(2) If the district court erred in its procedural ruling, whether it
also erred when it denied, in the alternative, Kitchen’s instant claim on the merits.”
Upon review, we conclude that Kitchen did exhaust his claim in state court but that
the district court did not err in denying Kitchen’s claim on the merits. We
therefore affirm.
I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
When examining a district court’s denial of a § 2254 habeas petition, we
review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and we
review findings of fact for clear error. Grossman v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 1325,
1335 (11th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion presents a mixed question of law and fact and
thus is subject to de novo review. Fox v. Kelso, 911 F.2d 563, 568 (11th Cir.
1990).
2
Case: 13-11274 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 3 of 6
II. DISCUSSION
A. Exhaustion of State Remedies
A district court cannot grant a habeas petition under § 2254 if the petitioner
has not first exhausted the claims asserted therein in state court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1)(A); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). To exhaust a
claim in state court, a petitioner must “fairly present[]” the claim in a manner such
that “a reasonable reader would understand [the] claim’s particular legal basis and
specific factual foundation.” McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir.
2005); see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). We conclude
Kitchen did so in the instant case.
Kitchen appealed his conviction, filed a petition to vacate his conviction
under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and also appealed the denial of
his Rule 3.850 petition in state court. In each of these proceedings, Kitchen fairly
presented his federal claims by citing United States v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303, 1309
(11th Cir. 1990), to establish that inadequacies in the translation of trial
proceedings can violate federal due process if they render a trial “fundamentally
unfair.” See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004) (“A litigant wishing to raise
a federal issue can easily indicate the federal law basis for his claim in a state-court
petition or brief, for example, by citing in conjunction with the claim the federal
source of law on which he relies or a case deciding such a claim on federal
3
Case: 13-11274 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 4 of 6
grounds, or by simply labeling the claim ‘federal.’”). Kitchen also cited cases
from states other than Florida, further indicating that he had not based his claims
solely on Florida law, and, in his appeal of the state court’s denial of his Rule
3.850 petition, Kitchen also cited Valladares v. United States, 871 F.2d 1564, 1566
(11th Cir. 1989), and stated that the inadequate translation of the trial proceedings
violated “the very foundation of due process and a fair trial as guaranteed by the
United States Constitution.” Taken together, these references to federal rights did
more than “scatter some makeshift needles in the haystack of the state court
record.” McNair, 416 F.3d at 1303 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, we conclude Kitchen sufficiently presented his claims so
as to exhaust his state court remedies for the purpose of seeking federal habeas
relief.
B. Merits of the Claim
The district court determined that, even if Kitchen had exhausted his claims
in state court, his petition would fail on the merits, and on this basis we affirm. To
succeed on the merits, a § 2254 habeas petitioner must establish that a state court’s
adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court,” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
4
Case: 13-11274 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 5 of 6
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2).
The state courts’ decisions in the instant case were not contrary to or
unreasonable applications of clearly-established federal law because no Supreme
Court precedent establishes that translations of court proceedings that are
inadequate in the manner Kitchen alleges render a trial “fundamentally unfair.”
Importantly, habeas review asks only whether the state court’s decision was
contrary to or unreasonably applied federal law that has been clearly established by
the Supreme Court, not whether a federal court, in its independent judgment,
agrees with the state court’s application of federal law in an area that remains
unsettled. See Hawkins v. Alabama, 318 F.3d 1302, 1307 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003)
(“The state courts must fully, faithfully and reasonably follow legal rules already
clearly established by the Supreme Court of the United States. . . . [S]tate courts
are not obliged to widen the rules.” (emphasis added)); see also Renico v. Lett, 559
U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (“[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply
because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-
court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Put simply, because the Supreme Court’s
cases give no clear answer to whether the translation deficiencies Kitchen alleged
rendered his trial fundamentally unfair, “it cannot be said that the state court
5
Case: 13-11274 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 6 of 6
unreasonably applied clearly established Federal law.” Wright v. Van Patten, 552
U.S. 120, 126 (2008) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that regardless of whether Kitchen
exhausted his claims in state court, the claims fail on the merits, and he is therefore
not entitled to habeas relief under § 2254.
AFFIRMED.
6