Gregg Jeffery Wardell v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 692 F. App'x 578

Background

Gregg Wardell, a Florida prisoner sentenced to 30 years for drug trafficking, filed a § 2254 habeas petition challenging his trial counsel’s performance.
The district court denied relief but granted a Certificate of Appealability on two issues: (1) whether Wardell’s claim that counsel failed to advise him of a 25‑year mandatory minimum is procedurally barred and, if not, whether counsel was ineffective; and (2) whether counsel was ineffective at competency proceedings (subparts (d)–(f)).
Wardell did not raise the mandatory‑minimum theory in his Florida Rule 3.850 motion; his state postconviction hearing and appellate briefing focused on counsel’s advice about Florida’s 85% rule, not the 25‑year minimum.
The state postconviction court limited its review to the 85% rule claim, denied relief on the merits, and the state appellate court affirmed per curiam.
On the competency claims, Wardell argued counsel was unaware of a prior Hillsborough County incompetency adjudication and two Hillsborough expert reports; counsel later learned of those materials and took steps (bringing them to the court’s attention, seeking appointment of the Hillsborough experts, obtaining a court‑appointed expert who could not evaluate Wardell due to noncooperation, and moving again on the eve of trial).
The federal appellate court held the mandatory‑minimum claim is procedurally defaulted for lack of proper exhaustion and rejected Wardell’s ineffective‑assistance competency claims on the merits (no unreasonable application of clearly established law and no Strickland prejudice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to advise Wardell of a 25‑year mandatory minimum is procedurally barred	Wardell: the omission was part and parcel of his Rule 3.850 claim and thus exhausted	State: Wardell never properly raised the mandatory‑minimum theory in state court; claim is untimely and procedurally defaulted	Held: Procedurally barred—Wardell failed to properly present the claim in state court and offered no cause or prejudice or miscarriage of justice
Whether counsel was ineffective regarding competency proceedings (subparts d–f)	Wardell: counsel failed to object to reliance on written/old reports, investigate available reports, obtain experts, or secure a full competency hearing	State: Counsel acted reasonably once he learned of the Hillsborough materials (brought them to court, sought appointments, obtained an expert, moved again before trial); reports tended to show possible malingering	Held: Denied on the merits—state court’s Strickland ruling was not an unreasonable application of federal law and Wardell failed to show Strickland prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes Strickland two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (exhaustion requires fair presentation of the federal claim to state courts)
Kelley v. Secretary for Department of Corrections, 377 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (failure to raise a specific ineffectiveness theory in Rule 3.850 means it is not exhausted)
Tharpe v. Warden, 834 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.) (describing the doubly deferential review applying Strickland and § 2254(d))
Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.) (procedural default principles)
Lawrence v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 700 F.3d 464 (11th Cir.) (applying Strickland to competency challenge claims)