Gary Michael Hilton v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

── Gary Michael Hilton v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections ── Case No.: 25-10207 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10207 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10207 ____________________ GARY MICHAEL HILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-00542-MCR ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ABUDU, Cir- cuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gary Michael Hilton, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death following his convictions for first-degree murder, kidnapping, and grand theft, appeals the district court’s denial of the habeas corpus USCA11 Case: 25-10207 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 15 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10207 petition he brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted Hil- ton a certificate of appealability on four issues: (1) Whether Hilton received ineffective assistance be- cause his defense team was in disarray prior to and during trial; (2) Whether Hilton received ineffective assistance be- cause trial counsel failed to develop and present a co- hesive defense for the guilt and penalty phases; (3) Whether Hilton received ineffective assistance be- cause appellate counsel failed to appeal the denial of a change of venue; and, (4) Whether Hilton received ineffective assistance be- cause appellate counsel failed to appeal the denial of for-cause challenges during jury selection. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm his death sentence and conviction. 1 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW “When a state court has adjudicated a habeas petitioner’s claim on the merits, we review its decision under [the] ‘highly def- erential’ standards” of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Pen- alty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Pye v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 1We write only for the parties who already are familiar with the relevant facts and proceedings in this case, so we include only what is necessary to explain our decision. USCA11 Case: 25-10207 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 15 25-10207 Opinion of the Court 3 50 F.4th 1025, 1034 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 269 (2015)). When that deference applies, a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the decision of the state court (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” considering the “evidence presented in the State court pro- ceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2); Calhoun v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison, 92 F.4th 1338, 1346 (11th Cir. 2024). When AEDPA deference is not appropriate, we instead apply de novo review. Cal- houn, 92 F.4t