Matthew Johnson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 680 F. App'x 869

Matthew Johnson, a Florida prisoner serving 30 years for lewd or lascivious molestation of a child, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging trial counsel’s effectiveness.
The district court denied relief and granted a certificate of appealability on two Strickland-based claims: (1) counsel failed to present testimony of the victim’s brother who later averred he did not see the offense; (2) counsel failed to introduce court records showing Johnson was incarcerated for portions of the alleged timeframe.
At trial the victim testified her brother was in the room during the incident; the brother’s post-conviction affidavit said he saw no inappropriate touching.
Trial counsel elicited testimony from Johnson’s father about jail stays (Jan–Sept 2003; Jul–Nov 2004) and argued those gaps in closing, but did not introduce official jail records.
The state court denied relief on the brother-testimony claim on the merits; it did not address the record-evidence ineffective-assistance claim, prompting appellate discussion of AEDPA deference vs. de novo review.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: the brother’s affidavit would not have contradicted the victim’s testimony, and counsel’s presentation of jail-time testimony (and the limited value of records) did not establish prejudice.

Issue	Johnson's Argument	State/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting the victim’s brother to impeach the victim	Brother later swore he saw no touching; his testimony would have impeached victim and undermined conviction	Brother’s testimony would not have contradicted victim—she said brother was in room, not that he saw the act; omission not prejudicial	Denied — no Strickland prejudice; brother’s testimony would not have altered outcome
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce jail/court records showing incarceration during much of the alleged timeframe	Records would narrow timeframe and cast doubt on ability to commit offense	Counsel already elicited father’s testimony about jail stays and argued it; records would not establish innocence or substantially change outcome	Denied — counsel’s performance reasonable and no Strickland prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deferential Strickland review and interaction with AEDPA)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) ("objectively unreasonable" standard under AEDPA for legal error)
Bester v. Warden, 836 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 2254 claims and AEDPA presumption)
Windom v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 578 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2009) (either Strickland prong can be addressed first)
Gissendaner v. Seaboldt, 735 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2013) (rarity of finding ineffective-assistance claims meriting federal habeas relief)