Michael Henderson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

── Michael Henderson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections ── Case No.: 24-11482 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-11482 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11482 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MICHAEL HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00167-WFJ-SPF ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-11482 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 24-11482 Michael Henderson, a Florida prisoner sentenced to a term of life for capital sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation and battery, appeals pro se the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Henderson contends that the Flor- ida courts unreasonably adjudicated his claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to secure hearings under Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971), to address alleged dis- covery violations and by failing to depose a detective. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2011, the state charged Henderson with sexual crimes against three young boys—D.M., A.D., and A.D.’s younger brother—based on alleged conduct that occurred between Novem- ber 2007 and August 2009. The state entered a nolle prosequi on the charge associated with A.D.’s younger brother. Henderson pleaded not guilty to the remaining charges, and attorneys Dwight and Matthew Wells represented him at trial. During opening statements, the state alleged that Hender- son showed D.M. child pornography. Counsel objected and argued at sidebar that this allegation had “never came up before” and that he was tempted to move for a mistrial. The trial court overruled the objection, the parties gave their opening statements, and the state proceeded with its case-in-chief. D.M. and A.D. testified that they lived in the same apart- ment complex as Henderson, were friends with his son, Jed, and described how Henderson sexually abused them during visits to his apartment. D.M. testified that he was not initially forthcoming USCA11 Case: 24-11482 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 11 24-11482 Opinion of the Court 3 with police because he wanted to protect Henderson. He also named T.B. and R.A., two neighborhood boys, as witnesses to the alleged crimes. D.M. testified that T.B. witnessed Henderson en- gage in oral sex with him and that all three were naked at one point in Henderson’s room. D.M.’s mother testified that D.M. slept over at Henderson’s apartment many times and that Henderson made many phone calls to D.M. toward the end of his relationship with D.M. A.D.’s mother testified to her romantic relationship with Henderson and their financial arrangement, in which she provided him financial