Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 1 of 16
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13359
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00001-BAE-JEG
JAMES HAWES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GRADY PERRY,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 24, 2015)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 2 of 16
James Hawes, a Georgia prisoner, appeals the denial of his federal habeas
corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hawes is serving the remainder of a
15-year sentence on parole after being convicted by a jury in 2007 of enticing a
child for indecent purposes, statutory rape, and contributing to the delinquency of a
minor. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, we reverse in part the
district court and grant Hawes a writ of habeas corpus on two of the three counts of
his convictions.
BACKGROUND
At the age of 33, Hawes met the 14-year-old victim (K.P.) on an online
dating site, where K.P. was posing as a 19-year-old college student. The two
communicated via email and phone, and are alleged to have met in person on two
different weekends: the first in November 2002, and the second in December 2002.
These two weekends, and the conversations leading up to them, formed the basis of
Hawes’s convictions.
I. Weekend Encounters
In November 2002, Hawes made arrangements to travel from his home in
South Carolina to Georgia to visit K.P. for a weekend. At trial, Hawes testified
both that he did not realize K.P. was a minor when he picked her up and that he did
not have sexual intercourse with her. He admitted that they checked into a hotel
together, but said that after checking in he fell asleep and K.P. left with her friends.
2
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 3 of 16
According to K.P., however, Hawes gave her alcohol, they had sexual intercourse,
and the two spent the weekend together. When Hawes returned K.P. to her home
on Sunday, her parents took her to law enforcement to report the incident. This
November 2002 weekend formed the basis of Hawes’s statutory rape conviction
(count two).
K.P. claims that she stayed with Hawes in South Carolina during a second
weekend in December 2002. She said Hawes picked her up and drove her to South
Carolina, where they had sexual intercourse again. At some point, K.P. said she
confessed that she was actually 14 years old, after which she said Hawes took her
to a bus station and gave her money to pay for return fare to Georgia. This second
weekend formed the basis of Hawes’s convictions for contributing to the
delinquency of a minor and enticing a child for indecent purposes (counts one and
three).
II. State Court Trial Proceedings
Hawes initially pleaded guilty to all three counts and received a 5-year
sentence, with 60–90 days to be served in custody. After he served the custodial
portion of his sentence, Hawes filed a state habeas petition asserting that his plea
was involuntary. The Georgia Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated
Hawes’s plea.
3
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 4 of 16
Hawes then went to trial. At trial, the State called K.P. and two law
enforcement officers as witnesses, and Hawes testified in his own defense. Hawes
denied that the December encounter ever took place and testified that he had been
in West Virginia at the time of the alleged incident. In his § 2254 petition, Hawes
focuses on an email K.P. sent shortly after the alleged second encounter, which
supports his claim that it never occurred. The email, dated January 2, 2003, was
sent from K.P.’s known email account to Hawes’s account, and read:
Dear James,
I dunno if I did the right thing by lying to you and the police but, I felt
like I was in trouble. I took off my bracelet to leave the house and got
in trouble for it. After we got off the phone I came to South
Carolina to see if I could find you but I could not find your house and
all I got was your voice mail. I didn’t leave a message because I was
afraid you would think I was stalking you or you would be mad at me
for what I told the police. I hope I haven’t gotten you in to[o] much
trouble [K.P.] 1
Outside the presence of the jury, K.P. admitted to writing the email and offered an
explanation for the second to the last line regarding what she told the police and
regarding Hawes being mad. Trial counsel was initially permitted to question K.P.
about the January 2 email, but after she denied writing the email in front of the
jury, the court granted the State’s objection to further questioning on authentication
grounds. Trial counsel did not offer a foundation for the email, such as testimony
from the internet service provider (as suggested by the State at trial). Hawes later
1
K.P.’s first name was typed after the text of the email.
4
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 5 of 16
testified that he received the email from the victim, and offered a general
explanation of what it said.
III. Verdict and Post-Conviction Proceedings
The jury found Hawes guilty, and the court imposed a 15-year sentence on
counts one and two, and 12 months on count three, to be served concurrently—
dramatically longer than his original sentence. Hawes was represented by new
counsel on direct appeal. Hawes raised three sentencing-related claims on appeal
but did not challenge trial counsel’s performance or any evidentiary rulings made
by the trial court. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Hawes’s conviction and
sentence, and the Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari. Hawes v. State, 680
S.E.2d 513 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009), cert. denied (Ga. Jan. 12, 2010).
Hawes then filed a state habeas petition. He brought a number of claims,
including the following, which are relevant to this appeal: (1) ineffective assistance
of trial counsel based on failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the
January 2 email; (2) trial court error when the court would not permit Hawes to
question K.P., in violation of the Sixth Amendment, about an online journal entry
in which she made false allegations against two teachers; and (5) ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise on direct appeal the various
claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and trial court error.
5
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 6 of 16
The state habeas court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Hawes and his
appellate counsel testified. Strikingly, appellate counsel testified that he did not
think he could bring an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim because trial
counsel had assisted him with the appeal.
The state habeas court denied Hawes’s petition. The court concluded that
although Hawes’s appellate counsel was deficient for thinking he could not bring
ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims, Hawes was not eligible for relief
because he could not show counsel’s mistake prejudiced him. The court reasoned
that the jury had already seen sufficient evidence that the victim had lied on many
occasions, and therefore the evidence was cumulative. The court also concluded
that appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to appeal the trial court’s
exclusion of an online journal entry written by K.P., because no Georgia precedent
established the admissibility of a victim’s false allegations of sexual misconduct
made after the charged incident. The Georgia Supreme Court denied Hawes’s
application for a Certificate of Probable Cause to appeal.
Hawes filed a pro se § 2254 federal habeas petition. The district court
denied Hawes’s petition, concluding that the state habeas court’s decision on
6
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 7 of 16
Hawes’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was not an
unreasonable application of federal law. Hawes timely appealed. 2
DISCUSSION
When evaluating the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, we review
de novo questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, and we review
factual findings for clear error. Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir.
2000) (per curiam). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
“establishes a highly deferential standard for reviewing state court judgments.”
Robinson v. Moore, 300 F.3d 1320, 1342 (11th Cir. 2002). We cannot grant
habeas relief on claims that were previously adjudicated on the merits in state court
unless the adjudication:
(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 “clearly established federal law” relevant here is Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). To prove ineffective
2
On appeal, Hawes also makes a number of claims related to trial court error and ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, which the state habeas court held were procedurally defaulted. For
the reasons below, we do not reach those claims.
7
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 8 of 16
assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that (1) counsel’s performance was
deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland,
466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Under § 2254(d), “[t]he question is not
whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination under the
Strickland standard was incorrect but whether that determination was
unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.” Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556
U.S. 111, 123, 129 S. Ct. 1411, 1420 (2009) (quotation marks omitted).
To establish deficient performance, a petitioner must show that counsel
made errors so serious that he was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. The
proper measure of attorney performance is reasonableness under prevailing
professional norms. Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. To prove prejudice, 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.” Id.
at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. An ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-
counsel claim that challenges the failure to bring a claim can be successful only if
there is a reasonable probability that the omitted issue would have affected the
outcome. Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus,
although Hawes claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective, the analysis
8
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 9 of 16
collapses to whether the underlying issue (here, ineffective assistance of trial
counsel) is meritorious. Id.
COUNTS ONE AND THREE
Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes and Contributing
to the Delinquency of a Minor (December 2, 2002 Weekend Encounter)
The district court erred by deferring to the state habeas court’s decision on
Hawes’s ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. The state habeas court
unreasonably applied Strickland when it held that Hawes was not prejudiced by
appellate counsel’s failure to claim ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not
properly authenticating the January 2 email at trial.
The state habeas court correctly concluded that, under Georgia law,
appellate counsel was permitted to raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel
claims when trial counsel was still tangentially involved in the appeal. See White
v. Kelso, 401 S.E.2d 733, 734 (Ga. 1991). No competent attorney would have
omitted Hawes’s claim about the January 2 email on that basis, and appellate
counsel gave no additional tactical reason for electing not to pursue the claim on
appeal, nor can we imagine one. Nobody disputes that appellate counsel was
deficient.
However, the state habeas court found that Hawes could not establish
prejudice, because there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome on
appeal. The court reasoned that K.P. had been impeached a number of times, so
9
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 10 of 16
the substantial purpose of the email had already been accomplished. Hawes has
shown that this conclusion was objectively unreasonable with respect to his two
convictions arising out of the December 2002 weekend. Though the state habeas
court was correct that K.P. had already admitted to lying about her age, education,
dating history, and travel history, the January 2 email was not solely relevant to
show her general propensity for lying. The email served a different purpose:
undermining K.P.’s account of the specific events supporting Hawes’s convictions
and her truthfulness when testifying before the jury.
The evidence supporting the prosecution’s case on the December 2002
weekend encounter is skeletal, which made trial counsel’s deficient performance
all the more prejudicial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S. Ct. at 2052 (stating
that a “verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to
have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support”); see
also Gonzalez-Soberal v. United States, 244 F.3d 273, 278 (1st Cir. 2001) (holding
that “strength of the government’s case” is a factor to be considered in making the
prejudice determination). Hawes disputes that the second weekend visit ever
occurred. And the only evidence admitted at trial that showed otherwise was
K.P.’s testimony. It was a high-stakes, classic “he said, she said” scenario. The
January 2 email directly undercuts the sole evidence suggesting that the South
10
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 11 of 16
Carolina encounter occurred and is the only evidence to show that K.P was not
truthful in her testimony at trial.
Neither is this a case in which the omitted evidence could have bolstered the
State’s case by negatively impacting Hawes in any way. Cf. Wong v. Belmontes,
558 U.S. 15, 24, 27–28, 130 S. Ct. 383, 388–89, 391 (2009) (denying
Strickland claim on prejudice prong because omitted expert testimony would have
permitted the State to introduce other, damaging evidence about the petitioner’s
prior murder); Wright v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 761 F.3d 1256, 1283–84 (11th
Cir. 2014) (concluding that state court’s application of Strickland’s prejudice
analysis was not unreasonable because putting additional witness on the stand
would have allowed the state to cross-examine the witness about a negative fact).
The State has shown no reason why admission of the email would have done
anything but support Hawes’s case and undermine the truthfulness of K.P.’s
testimony about the second weekend encounter.
The State argues that any prejudice caused by not properly authenticating the
email was mitigated by Hawes’s testimony. True, Hawes discussed the January 2
email on the stand. But Hawes’s testimony only summarized that K.P. had sent
him an email that stated: “I don’t know if I did the right thing by lying to you and
the police. After we got off the phone, I came to South Carolina to see if I could
find your house.” The full text of the January 2 email offers more information that
11
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 12 of 16
was not given to the jury through Hawes’s testimony: the fact that K.P. “could not
find [Hawes’s] house,” and that she called but “did not leave a message.” This
information does more than merely establish that K.P. lied to the police and came
to South Carolina on her own, which was the substance of Hawes’s testimony.
With only Hawes’s testimony, the jury could conclude that K.P. ultimately met up
with Hawes in South Carolina—a fact supporting his conviction on counts one and
three. But, the full email also shows that K.P. never met with Hawes in South
Carolina, and it shows that she never told him she was coming or that she had
arrived. Taking the full email at face value, the jury could reasonably have
believed that Hawes never saw K.P. in South Carolina or knew she went there until
weeks later on January 2.
This email was the only evidence that K.P. had lied at trial about the key
events giving rise to Hawes’s conviction. This email was different in kind from all
the other evidence of K.P.’s untruthfulness because it demonstrated that she lied to
the jury. All of the other evidence of her dishonesty showed only that she had lied
to Hawes and other men. There is a stark contrast between evidence of falsehoods
in the world of online dating (all of which K.P. conceded in her testimony at trial)
and evidence showing that K.P. (1) completely fabricated the events leading to
Hawes’s prosecution; and (2) lied about the fabricated events to the police, the
State, and the jury while under oath at trial. This is notably important because
12
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 13 of 16
Hawes’s own testimony did not disclose the date of this email, which was critical
to his ability to undermine the second weekend he was alleged to have spent with
K.P. in December. Neither did Hawes’s own testimony reveal that the January 2
email was from the email account known to be K.P.’s. This being the case, and if
appellate counsel had raised the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not
laying a foundation for this critical evidence, there is a reasonable probability that
Hawes’s convictions would have been vacated. Thus, the state habeas court’s
conclusion that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome on
appeal had appellate counsel raised these issues was an unreasonable application of
Strickland.
Given the weakness of the State’s case, the strictly exculpatory nature of the
excluded evidence, the fact that it is not cumulative, and the strong impact it would
have had on K.P.’s credibility with the jury, there is a reasonable probability that
Hawes would not have been convicted on counts one and three if the jury had seen
the January 2 email making clear that the second encounter never occurred.
COUNT TWO
Statutory Rape (November 2002 Weekend Encounter)
Hawes also petitions for a writ of habeas corpus on his conviction for
statutory rape, arising out of the November 2002 weekend encounter. Only two of
Hawes’s claims plausibly reach the statutory rape conviction: ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel for not raising an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim
13
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 14 of 16
due to trial counsel’s failure to authenticate the January 2 email (the same claim
addressed above), and appellate counsel’s failure to bring an ineffective-assistance
claim involving the admissibility of the online journal entries.3 Hawes is ineligible
for habeas relief on either claim.
I. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel: January 2 Email
Though the January 2 email could arguably have impacted Hawes’s
statutory rape charge arising out of the November 2002 weekend, the district court
correctly deferred to the state court’s prejudice determination on that conviction.
In the January 2 email, K.P. discloses that she lied to the police (presumably when
she gave a statement saying she had sexual intercourse with Hawes during the
November 2002 weekend). This is not enough to show that Hawes was prejudiced
by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue. First, K.P. explained her email
outside the presence of the jury:
The last paper when it was talking about “if you’re not mad about what
I told the police” is in telling them the truth. It doesn’t say anything
about me lying, I was worried that he was mad that I had told the
police the truth about where I went and what I did.
This testimony would undercut the strength of Hawes’s argument on appeal that
K.P. lied to the police about having sex with him during the November 2002
weekend. Also, unlike his claim about the December 2002 weekend, Hawes
3
None of Hawes’s remaining claims plausibly reaches the statutory rape conviction, so we do
not analyze them separately.
14
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 15 of 16
admits that he spent at least part of the November 2002 weekend in a hotel with
K.P. Even if the email had been admitted, a jury could still have discredited his
testimony about not having sexual intercourse with K.P. Any prejudice caused by
the error was likely mitigated by Hawes’s testimony, which stated that K.P. said
she lied to the police in the January 2 email. There is not a reasonable likelihood
that the outcome of the appeal of Hawes’s statutory rape conviction would have
been different had appellate counsel challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness with
regard to the January 2 email, and Hawes is not entitled to habeas relief on that
basis.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel: Online Journal Entry
Hawes also challenges the effectiveness of appellate counsel for failing to
appeal the trial court’s exclusion of K.P.’s online journal. Hawes’s trial strategy
was to question K.P.’s credibility by presenting evidence that she was a liar. Trial
counsel tried to admit an entry from K.P.’s online journal, in which she made false
allegations of sexual advances made by two teachers at her school. The court did
not allow trial counsel to admit or question K.P. about the journal entries.
Hawes is not entitled to habeas relief on his statutory rape conviction on the
basis of the trial court’s exclusion of the online journal entry. The state habeas
court determined that Hawes could not establish either prong of Strickland in
claiming that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial
15
Case: 13-13359 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 16 of 16
court’s exclusion. Hawes has not shown that this decision was an unreasonable
application of federal law. The state habeas court reasoned that a Georgia case,
which held that a victim’s prior false accusations of sexual misconduct were
admissible evidence, did not establish that subsequent false allegations of sexual
misconduct were also admissible. Hawes cites no Georgia precedent to the
contrary, so his appellate counsel was not deficient for electing not to challenge the
ruling.
CONCLUSION
Because Hawes was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise an
ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim pertaining to the January 2 email, we
reverse the district court’s Order denying habeas relief on counts one and three.
We grant Hawes a writ of habeas corpus and vacate his convictions on those
counts.4 We affirm the district court’s denial of Hawes’s petition on count two.
REVERSED AND VACATED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
4
We vacate the convictions on counts one and three solely on the basis of Hawes’s ineffective-
assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim relating to the ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failure to
lay the foundation for the January 2 email. We express no opinion about the reasonableness of
the state habeas court’s decision on Hawes’s remaining claims regarding counts one and three.
See Guzman v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 663 F.3d 1336, 1339 (11th Cir. 2011).
16