Renell Jones v. Florida Department of Corrections

── Renell Jones v. Florida Department of Corrections ── Case No.: 24-12763 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 10, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12763 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12763 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ RENELL JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, versus FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-21478-RNS ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Renell Jones, a Florida prisoner serving a life sen- tence for first-degree felony murder and burglary, as well as sen- tences for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, appeals the USCA11 Case: 24-12763 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12763 district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Jones argues that the Miami-Dade Circuit Court and Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal unreasonably determined that he waived his Mi- randa 1 rights. Jones contends that the State Circuit Court should have excluded evidence from his interrogation because the police officer who gave him a Miranda form, Detective Grossman, told him that the form was a literacy test. Jones also argues that the State Circuit Court and the Third District Court of Appeal unrea- sonably found that he equivocally invoked his right to counsel. Thus, Jones argues that the district court erred by giving deference to the state courts’ opinions and by denying him habeas relief. Af- ter reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order denying his §2254 petition. I. We review a district court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus de novo, but we review a state court’s decision with deference. Sears v. Warden GDCP, 73 F.4th 1269, 1279 (11th Cir. 2023). A fed- eral court may grant a habeas petition from a state prisoner only if the state court’s decision either (1) contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, as determined by the Su- preme Court, or (2) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts considering the evidence the parties presented to the state court. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). USCA11 Case: 24-12763 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 Page: 3 of 9 24-12763 Opinion of the Court 3 When the last state court to review a petitioner’s federal claim offers reasoning for denying the claim, federal courts con- sider that reasoning and review the state court’s decision with def- erence. Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 122, 125, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). When the last state court to review the petitioner’s federal claim does not offer reasoning for its decision, federal courts must “look through” that state court’s decision and consider the ra- tionale a lower state court offered for denying the claim, presum- ing that the higher state court adopted the same reasoning. Id. In