Michael Horsley v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 713 F. App'x 937

Michael Horsley, a pro se Florida prisoner, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for possession with intent to sell heroin; the district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on Claim Two (denial of judgment of acquittal).
At trial Horsley was found near a wall in an area known for heroin dealing; he gestured toward the wall where officers later found a paper bag in a crevice containing rice, two packages of cocaine, and 52 individually packaged bags of heroin.
After arrest Horsley identified the contents as heroin and powdered cocaine and denied there was crack cocaine.
Horsley argued (1) the district court improperly considered inadmissible testimony from Officer Santiago, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to sell beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Florida appellate court summarily affirmed the trial court’s denial of Horsley’s motion for judgment of acquittal; that summary adjudication is entitled to AEDPA deference on federal habeas review.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed application of AEDPA and Jackson v. Virginia standards and affirmed the denial of habeas relief as to Claim Two.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by considering Officer Santiago’s allegedly inadmissible testimony	Horsley: testimony was inadmissible and should have been excluded; its consideration infected the denial of relief	State: the issue was not properly preserved for federal habeas review on appeal	Not addressed on the merits (raised for first time on appeal)
Whether evidence was insufficient to prove possession with intent to sell	Horsley: quantity/packaging and circumstances did not prove intent to sell beyond a reasonable doubt; could be personal use	State: 52 individually packaged bags, hiding conduct in a known dealing area, identification of contents, and lack of evidence of personal use supported intent to sell	Affirmed: under AEDPA and Jackson, a rational juror could find intent to sell; state court ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law nor an unreasonable factual determination

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal convictions)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (state-court merits adjudication need not include reasons; petitioner must show no reasonable basis for denial)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (AEDPA’s high threshold for federal habeas relief)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (AEDPA deference and review standards)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (meaning of "clearly established" Supreme Court law under AEDPA)
Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227 (last adjudication on the merits is the relevant state-court decision under § 2254(d))
Pardo v. Secretary, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1093 (standard of review for § 2254 denials)