In Re Lambrix
624 F.3d 1355
| 11th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lambrix was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Florida; direct appeal affirmed.
- He pursued multiple postconviction relief efforts in state court with several resolutions; federal petitions followed, including a 1988 habeas petition and multiple successive motions.
- Lambrix sought leave in federal court to file a second or successive § 2254 petition under AEDPA § 2244(b), asserting 12 new claims.
- The court outlined the statutory requirements for a second/successive petition, including showing a new rule or new facts with clear and convincing evidence under § 2244(b)(2).
- The panel reviewed the 12 claims, identifying several as non-constitutional, previously raised, or not exhausted, and found none satisfied § 2244(b)(2) prerequisites.
- The court denied Lambrix’s application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition, and denied related motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 12 new claims may be heard as second/successive petition | Lambrix asserts new claims meet § 2244(b)(2)(B) prerequisites. | Lambrix fails to show new factual predicate or clear/convincing evidence of factual innocence. | Not met; application denied. |
| Do three claims lack constitutional error | Claims 1, 11, 12 rely on miscarriage of justice or non-constitutional issues. | No asserted constitutional error shown. | Denied; no constitutional error shown. |
| Are three prior § 2254 claims barred as previously raised | Claims 7, 8, 10 were previously presented and rejected. | Res judicata/preclusion applies under § 2244(b)(1). | Denied as time-barred due to prior presentation. |
| Do remaining claims (3, 6, 2) satisfy § 2244(b)(2)(i)-(ii) | Alleged Brady/Giglio violations and actual innocence claim are new. | Evidence does not meet due diligence or clear/convincing standard; hairs, recantations, or relations are insufficient. | Denied; failing to meet § 2244(b)(2) requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009) (AEDPA finality aims; new rule/retroactivity framework)
- In re Schwab, 531 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 2008) (claims must allege constitutional error under § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii))
- Lambrix v. Singletary, 72 F.3d 1500 (11th Cir. 1996) (prior § 2254 petition outcomes; procedural posture)
- Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) (Supreme Court affirmance of appellate decision)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (actual innocence standard; extraordinarily high showing)
- Porter v. Singletary, 49 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1995) (judicial bias discussion; collateral review context)