Maldonado v. Florida Department of Corrections, 0:18-cv-60061

Background

On Aug. 6, 2007, Deputy Maury Hernandez (plainclothes, unmarked car) encountered David Maldonado after Maldonado ran a red light; Maldonado fled, turned, and shot Hernandez in the head during a foot chase.
A .45 Glock with Maldonado’s blood and DNA was recovered near the scene; two spent casings at the scene matched that Glock; the Glock’s magazine capacity and recovered count supported that rounds had been fired from it.
Maldonado gave a post-arrest statement denying the shooting but admitting flight, discarding a red shirt/holster, and denying firearm ownership; evidence from his home (gun boxes, magazines, receipt in another’s name) and witness Polanco linked firearms to Maldonado.
Maldonado was convicted of attempted first-degree murder of a law-enforcement officer and lesser included attempted robbery; sentenced to life with a 20-year mandatory minimum and concurrent 10 years.
He pursued direct appeal and state 3.850 post-conviction review; some claims were raised only on appeal. He filed a federal habeas petition raising six claims (ineffective assistance for various failings and an evidentiary/due-process claim).
Magistrate Judge Valle recommended denial of the §2254 petition: Claims I–III were unexhausted and procedurally barred; Claims IV–V failed Strickland on deficiency and prejudice; Claim VI failed for lack of fair presentation to the state and, alternatively, on the merits given overwhelming evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion / Procedural default (Claims I–III: change of venue, Miranda investigation, motion to dismiss over moved gun)	Maldonado contends counsel erred; raised claims on appeal from denial of 3.850	State: claims were not raised in the trial court’s (amended) 3.850 motion and thus were not properly exhausted; statute of limitations and state rules now bar relief	Claims I–III unexhausted and procedurally defaulted; denied (petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice)
Claim IV — failure to call ballistics/metallurgical experts	Maldonado: experts could have shown Deputy accidentally shot himself and that Maldonado could not have caused the wound; counsel’s omission undermined adversarial testing	State: calling experts was strategic; petitioner’s assertions are speculative and unsupported by affidavits; overwhelming forensic and eyewitness evidence ties the Glock to Maldonado	Denied — counsel’s decision was a reasonable trial strategy; petitioner failed to show deficiency or prejudice under Strickland
Claim V — failure to impeach Deputy about BSO procedures and hollow points	Maldonado: counsel should have impeached the Deputy on pursuit policy and use/issue of hollow point bullets to undermine credibility	State: counsel did cross-examine on related points; tactical choices upheld; impeachment would not likely change outcome	Denied — cross-examination and closing arguments already highlighted inconsistencies; no Strickland deficiency or prejudice shown
Claim VI — admission of gun-related evidence, post-arrest statement, Marine Corps testimony, Polanco testimony	Maldonado: admission of irrelevant, highly prejudicial evidence denied due process and a fair trial	State: on direct appeal petitioner argued only state-evidence-law grounds (Fla. Stat. §§90.401, 90.403); Fourth DCA decided on state law; alternatively, evidence was probative and any error was harmless given the record	Denied — claim was not fairly presented as a federal due-process claim (procedural bar); alternatively fails on the merits — admission did not render trial fundamentally unfair given overwhelming evidence

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (§2254(d) highly deferential standard; unreasonable application vs. incorrect application)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (§2254(d) requires objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (deference to state-court decisions in habeas review)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel can establish cause for procedural default in certain circumstances)
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (must fairly present federal claim to state courts to preserve it for federal habeas review)
Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (1941) (habeas relief for state evidentiary error only when trial is so unfair as to deny due process)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard under Florida law as discussed by the Fourth DCA)