[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10962 September 2, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00027-CV-4-RH-WCS
WALTER HARRIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JAMES CROSBY,
CHARLES CRIST,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 2, 2005)
Before BLACK, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Harris is a Florida prisoner serving a 25-year sentence for several
offenses arising from his sexual battery of a 12-year-old student while Harris was a
teacher and coach. He appeals pro se the denial of his federal habeas petition,
which was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Because Harris filed his petition after the effective date of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the provisions of that Act apply. That
Act “prevents a federal court from granting habeas relief unless the state court’s
decision either 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.’” Rutherford v. Crosby, 385 F.3d 1300,
1306 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)).
The State of Florida filed six counts against Harris. Each charged sexual
battery, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 794.011(8)(b), and the lesser included offense of
battery, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 784.03. Harris first argues that he was denied
due process because the state trial court refused to instruct the jury on an additional
statute that Harris contends is also a lesser included offense of Fla. Stat.
§ 794.011(8)(b).1 We have held, however, that in non-capital cases, like this one,
1
Harris’ brief cites Fla. Stat. § 794.011(5) as the lesser included offense on which he wanted
the jury instructed. We, like the State, assume that Harris meant to cite Fla. Stat. § 800.04(4), which
2
the “Due Process Clause does not require a state court to instruct the jury on lesser
included offenses.” Perry v. Smith, 810 F.2d 1078, 1080 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus,
the argument is meritless.
Harris’ initial brief can be fairly construed as also asking this Court to
review whether the state trial court’s failure to provide the additional lesser
included offense instruction was an error under state law. We will not reach the
merits of that argument. “[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to
reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. In conducting habeas
review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.
62, 68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 480 (1991). As we have said, there is no federal due
process violation, and that is all we need decide.
Harris’ second argument is that his trial counsel was constitutionally
ineffective for requesting that the jury be instructed that Fla. Stat. § 800.04(4)(a) is
a lesser included offense of Fla. Stat. § 794.011(8)(b). It is undisputed that trial
counsel erred in requesting that instruction because counsel was referring to the
revised version of Fla. Stat. § 800.04(4)(a) that went into effect in October 1999,
is the statute that Harris had relied on in his § 2254 petition and argued to the district court. Harris
cannot switch statutes on appeal. Of course, as the discussion in the text reflects, which statute is
at issue is irrelevant to our resolution of the merits of this argument.
3
and thus did not apply to Harris’ crimes, which had occurred in March and April of
1999. Harris says that he was prejudiced by counsel’s error because counsel
should have requested a lesser included offense instruction about a statute that
applied to the proceedings (his brief doesn’t say which statute) and that, had
counsel done so, the jury would have likely convicted Harris of that other lesser
included offense.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), provides
the “clearly established . . . federal law governing ineffective assistance claims.”
Rutherford, 385 F.3d at 1308. Under Strickland, Harris “must demonstrate that his
counsel’s performance was outside the wide range of professionally competent
assistance . . . [and] he must establish a reasonable probability that, but for his
counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceedings would have been
different.” Rutherford, 385 F.3d at 1308 (internal marks and citations omitted).
“[F]ailure to establish either is fatal and makes it unnecessary to consider the
other.” Id.
On its face, Harris’ argument is that his trial counsel erred simply by
requesting that the jury be instructed on the October 1999 version of Fla. Stat. §
800.04(4)(a). Harris cannot demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from that error.
No prejudice attached merely because counsel asked for that to which Harris was
4
not entitled.
Liberally construing Harris’ brief, it may be read to argue that his trial
counsel erred by not requesting that the jury be instructed on a different statute.
Under this construction as well Harris cannot demonstrate “that, but for his
counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceedings would have been
different.” Rutherford, 385 F.3d at 1308. “A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (internal
marks and citations omitted). Harris’ assertions that he would have been convicted
of the lesser included offense, as opposed to the greater offense, are pure
speculation—speculation both that the state trial court would have decided to
instruct the jury on the lesser included offense and that the jury, if instructed on the
lesser included offense, would have convicted on it instead of the higher offense.
That speculation is insufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome of his
trial.
AFFIRMED.
5