Edwin Arvelo v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9665
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Arvelo, a Florida prisoner, was sentenced to 60 years in 2007 after pleading nolo contendere to kidnapping with intent to commit sexual battery, attempted sexual battery by force, aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, and attempted first-degree murder.
- He alleges Miranda violations and ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress statements from interrogation; the district court found no unreasonable application of federal law.
- On August 16, 2006, Arvelo attacked Bergeron, was taken into custody, and waivedMiranda rights after confirming his understanding.
- During interrogation he confessed to forcing Bergeron into his car with intent to have sex; his statements were occasionally incoherent and downplayed by the detective.
- The confession was the only direct evidence for the sexual battery/kidnapping charges despite corroborating eyewitnesses and DNA; defense counsel did not file a suppression motion and Arvelo pled nolo contendere, with a strategy reportedly to enter an open plea to avoid a life sentence.
- The state habeas petition was denied; the district court rejected relief on multiple grounds, leading to a remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of ineffective assistance by pleading, contrary to federal law | Arvelo argues waiver by plea does not bar IAC claim. | State argues waiver by plea forecloses IAC claim. | Waiver by pleading was contrary to federal law. |
| Adequacy of counsel’s failure to move to suppress confession and prejudice | Failure to suppress; confession is sole direct evidence. | There was other evidence and plea benefits; suppression may not have changed outcome. | Remand needed to evaluate suppression viability and prejudice with proper evidentiary development. |
| Prejudice standard in suppression context | Prejudice should reflect likelihood suppression would succeed at trial. | Sentence or other factors should be considered; not solely suppression likelihood. | District Court erred by focusing on sentence; apply Hill standard focusing on suppression success. |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on the claim | Record insufficient to resolve IAC claim. | Record adequate for decision. | Remand to District Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (two-step Strickland prejudice standard for guilty-plea context)
- Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) (whether suppression would have succeeded; defense strategy relevance)
- Lynch v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 776 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2015) (Hill prejudice standard applied; focus on trial outcome)
- Moore, 562 U.S. 123 (2011) (Strickland evaluation tied to whether a motion to suppress would have been successful)
- Madison v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 761 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2014) ( evidentiary hearing when state court unreasonably applies federal law)