Marvin Tyrone Tarleton v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 5 F.4th 1278

Background

Bank teller was robbed; surveillance video and still photos captured the perpetrator; about $3,429 taken. Two weeks later the teller selected Tarleton from a six-photo photospread but acknowledged she could not be "positive." DNA and latent prints from the scene excluded Tarleton.
Three relatives (stepmother Joyce Tarleton, niece Ashley Hoffman, ex-wife Franchesca Swierz) testified at trial identifying Tarleton from the surveillance photos/video; other relatives/non‑testifying family members reportedly told the detective they recognized the photos.
Detective Venosh testified about out‑of‑court identifications by non‑testifying individuals (including April Hoffman, James and Nynce Tarleton) and an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip; defense counsel did not object to that testimony.
Tarleton was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 30 years. State courts denied postconviction relief (Rule 3.850) and appellate habeas; federal §2254 habeas was also denied.
The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on ineffective-assistance (failure to object to hearsay), a Confrontation Clause claim (detective’s recounting of April Hoffman), and cumulative‑error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to hearsay from non‑testifying witnesses (April Hoffman, James, Nynce, anonymous tip)	Counsel’s omissions let inadmissible, identifying hearsay reach the jury and were prejudicial under Strickland	Any hearsay was cumulative and weak compared with strong testimonial identifications by the teller and three relatives plus the surveillance video/photos; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Affirmed denial: state court reasonably applied Strickland and its factual finding that the teller identified Tarleton was not unreasonable under AEDPA
Confrontation Clause challenge to detective’s testimony recounting April Hoffman’s ID (testimonial hearsay)	April’s out‑of‑court identification was testimonial under Crawford and admission violated the Sixth Amendment because declarant was not produced	The claim was exhausted; but any Confrontation error was harmless given cumulative trial evidence (photos, video, live witnesses) under Brecht	Affirmed: presumed on‑the‑merits state adjudication could reasonably be viewed as harmless error; no relief
Cumulative error (aggregation of the hearsay/Crawford/ineffective assistance errors)	Combined effect of errors deprived Tarleton of a fair trial	Even assuming cumulative claims are cognizable, there is no reversible prejudice because the individual errors lacked substantial effect	Affirmed: court assumed arguendo aggregation but denied relief because underlying claims fail
Challenge to state‑court factual finding that teller identified Tarleton	State court unreasonably credited the teller’s identification and thus misapplied Strickland prejudice prong	AEDPA requires deference; reasonable jurists could credit the teller’s testimony and the state court’s finding	Affirmed: the state court’s factual determination was not unreasonable under §2254(d)(2)

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two‑prong test and prejudice standard)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause rule)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; burden when state court gives no reasons)
Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (deference to state trial court factual findings on habeas)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless‑error standard for habeas — "substantial and injurious effect")
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (applying Brecht in §2254 proceedings)
Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (discussion of §2254(d) vs §2254(e) review issues)
Meders v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 911 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. discussion of AEDPA deference in Strickland context)
Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (definition of "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)