[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-12005 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 27, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cv-00254-SDM-TBM
DOYLE G. GALIN,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondents - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 27, 2012)
Before BARKETT, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Doyle Galin, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We granted a certificate of
appealability (COA) to determine whether the district court erred when it found
four of Galin’s claims unexhausted and therefore procedurally barred.
I. Background
In Florida state court, Galin was convicted by a jury of two counts and
sentenced on each count to fifteen years in prison and one year of probation, to run
concurrently. These convictions and sentences were summarily affirmed on direct
appeal. Galin v. State, 819 So. 2d 764 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (per curiam).
Galin then filed a pro se motion for state postconviction relief pursuant to Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 wherein he raised seventeen constitutional
grounds for relief, including (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to
investigate the facts of the case (Claim 1); (2) ineffective assistance of trial
counsel for failure to include Galin in the jury-selection process (Claim 3); (3)
ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to impeach the victim (Claim 7);
and (4) trial counsel’s conflict of interest by obtaining automobile assistance from
the victim’s relative, who was an automobile mechanic (Claim 8). The state court
granted an evidentiary hearing on several of the claims raised in his Rule 3.850
motion, but not on the claims recited above. Following the evidentiary hearing,
2
the state postconviction court denied relief on all claims. Through counsel, Galin
appealed the denial. As regards the four claims listed above, Galin argued that the
trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing. The state appellate court
summarily affirmed the denial of his postconviction relief. Galin v. State, 919 So.
2d 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (per curiam).
Galin filed a pro se § 2254 petition in federal district court raising thirty-
one grounds for relief, including the claims he raised in his Rule 3.850 motion as
claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 (renumbered in his habeas petition as 5, 7, 12, and 11,
respectively). The district court found these four claims unexhausted, reasoning
that Galin only challenged the state trial court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing
rather than the denial of the substance of his claims in his state postconviction
appeal. Because the district court found these claims unexhausted, it dismissed
them as procedurally barred. We granted a COA to determine whether the district
court erred when it found claims 5, 7, 11, and 12 of Galin’s § 2254 petition
unexhausted.
II. Standard of Review
When considering the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, we
conduct a de novo review of questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact.
Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). We review
3
the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Id. The district court’s
conclusion as to whether a petitioner exhausted his state court remedies is a mixed
question of law and fact, and as such we review it de novo. Fox v. Kelso, 911 F.2d
563, 568 (11th Cir. 1990).
III. Discussion
Federal habeas relief is available to correct only those custodial injuries
resulting from violations of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Before filing a federal habeas petition, a state
prisoner must exhaust state court remedies, either on direct appeal or in a state
postconviction motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). To exhaust state remedies, the
petitioner must fairly present every issue raised in his federal petition to the state’s
highest court, either on direct appeal or on collateral review. Mason v. Allen, 605
F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S.
346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1060 (1989)).
Exhaustion does not require a petitioner to raise more in a state appellate
court than could reasonably be granted by that court. Henry v. Dep’t of Corr., 197
F.3d 1361, 1368 (11th Cir. 1999). Where, as in Florida, “state procedure makes it
appropriate for a petitioner to request an evidentiary hearing” on appeal before
arguing the merits of his case and requesting a new trial, “the difference between a
4
request for an evidentiary hearing in state court and a request for a federal writ
under § 2254 . . . is not enough to render a petitioner’s constitutional claims
unexhausted.” Id. at 1367.
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, a defendant is permitted to
file a postconviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence if the
judgment was entered or the sentence imposed in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States or the State of Florida. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(a)(1).
Rule 3.850 requires the state court to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is
required or whether the motion may be denied without a hearing. Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.850(d).
Henry is instructive here. There, the petitioner raised two claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his Rule 3.850 motion and on appeal
alleged error in the postconviction court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Henry, 197 F.3d at 1363. In Henry’s § 2254 habeas petition, he raised the same
ineffective assistance of counsel allegations he raised in his initial Rule 3.850
motion, and the district court found those claims procedurally barred because he
failed to exhaust his claims in state court. Id. There, we determined that under
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, a state court appeal requesting only an
evidentiary hearing sufficed to have exhausted Henry’s claims in state court for
5
the purposes of § 2254. Id. at 1368.
Our holding in Henry makes clear that failure to raise substantive arguments
when appealing a Florida court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850
motion does not render a claim unexhausted. Id. at 1367–68. Galin’s appellate
Rule 3.850 brief sets forth a factual basis for his claims and a legal argument as to
why he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We therefore find that his claims
were properly exhausted in state court, and the district court erred in denying those
claims.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
6