USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 1 of 11

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11338 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JUAN IVAN RODRIGUEZ, 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. 8:16-cv-02992-KKM-SPF USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 2 of 11

PER CURIAM: Juan Rodriguez, a counseled Florida state prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to deter- mine (1) whether the Florida trial court sentenced Rodriguez in ex- cess of the statutory maximum based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and, if so, (2) whether such error was harmless.

Rodriguez’s enhanced sentence rests on the jury’s finding that his DUI manslaughter offenses “directly resulted” in the death of five victims. Rodriguez argues that this finding involves a higher de- gree of causation than his conviction required and that it was not established by the evidence presented at trial. For the reasons, stated below, we affirm the district court’s denial of Rodriguez’s habeas petition.

I. BACKGROUND Rodriguez filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging that he was a Florida state prisoner serving five consecutive life sentences for his DUI manslaughter convictions. Rodiguez argued, among other things, that Florida’s sentencing scheme violates Apprendi be- cause it permits sentences to be increased over the otherwise appli- cable statutory maximum based on facts not found by a jury be- yond a reasonable doubt. Rodriguez also argued that the statutory USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 3 of 11

23-11338 Opinion of the Court 3 maximum for his offenses was 15 years for each count but he was sentenced over that based on the conclusion that he caused the death of the victims even though the jury “did not determine spe- cifically whether [he] caused the death[s] or merely contributed” and the evidence was in conflict on that point.

In response, the state argued that: (1) Rodriguez failed to ex- haust his Apprendi claim because he raised it only on appeal and not before the sentencing court; (2) there was no Apprendi issue be- cause the jury found that Rodriguez caused the deaths of victims in its guilty verdicts on DUI manslaughter, which is the fact underly- ing the enhancement; and (3) the jury was not required to distin- guish between causing the deaths, and contributing to causing the deaths.

The state submitted exhibits showing that Rodriguez was charged on May 29, 2003, with five counts of DUI manslaughter and five additional counts.

Following trial, the state trial court instructed the jury that, to prove that Rodriguez had committed DUI manslaughter, the state had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Rodriguez “drove a vehicle”; (2) that he was impaired or had a blood alcohol level of .08 or more; and (3) “as a result, [Rodriguez] caused or con- tributed to the cause of the deaths” of the five victims. The jury, in a general verdict, found Rodriguez guilty of five counts of DUI manslaughter and five counts of reckless driving.

At sentencing, the state argued that, under the ordinary stat- utory maximum for DUI manslaughter, Rodriguez could be USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 4 of 11

Rodriguez appealed, arguing that his sentence was enhanced beyond the statutory maximum based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. His sentence was summarily affirmed.

In this habeas action, Rodriguez argued that the state did not raise a procedural bar in his direct appeal and that the issue was there litigated on the merits, so it was fairly presented to state courts.

The district court denied Rodriguez’s petition, finding that “because of how the trial court instructed the jury and the neces- sary factual findings contained therein, no Apprendi violation oc- curred here.” The district court also found that any Apprendi error

USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 5 of 11

23-11338 Opinion of the Court 5 would have been harmless because, based on the evidence, any rea- sonable jury would have found the enhancement applied. The dis- trict court denied a COA.

Rodriguez timely appealed. We granted a COA on the fol- lowing two questions: (1) Whether, in denying Rodriguez’s claim that his enhanced life sentences violated Apprendi v. New Jer- sey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the district court erred in con- cluding, based on the trial court’s jury instructions, that the jury had found the facts necessary to support the enhancements by convicting Rodriguez on the substantive offenses?; and, if so, (2) Whether the district court erred in concluding that the potential Apprendi violation was harmless.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review the denial or grant of habeas corpus relief de novo.

McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). “The dis- trict court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo.” Id. “[A]ppel- late review is limited to the issues specified in the COA.” Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998).

A petition under § 2254 may not be granted with respect to a claim decided on the merits by a state court unless that decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 6 of 11

Any fact, other than the fact of prior conviction, that in- creases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a rea- sonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. Claims under Apprendi are subject to harmless error review. See Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218–22 (2006).

III. ANALYSIS On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the district court erred in denying his Apprendi claim because the state trial court could not have sentenced him to life imprisonment without finding that the victims’ deaths were the direct result of his conduct. He contends that this “direct result” finding involves a higher degree of causa- tion than his conviction required, and therefore, that his conviction for the substantive offenses did not automatically satisfy the sen- tencing enhancement. Rodriguez acknowledges that, in Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008), the Florida Supreme Court stated that conviction for an offense which includes causing death as an element would satisfy the “direct result” requirement, but Rodri- guez argues that the Florida Supreme Court did not adopt a per se USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 7 of 11

23-11338 Opinion of the Court 7 rule and instead employed a fact specific analysis. Rodriguez ar- gues that, in his case, the evidence at trial established that the vic- tims died from a crash but did not distinguish the crash that he caused from a crash caused by his co-defendant. Thus, he argues, it cannot be determined from the jury’s general verdict which crash they concluded was the cause of the deaths. Lastly, Rodriguez ar- gues that the error is not harmless because a jury could have found that the accident caused by his co-defendant resulted in the victims’ deaths.

Under Florida law, someone who “causes or contributes to causing” a death while driving with more than a .08 BAC is guilty of DUI manslaughter. Fla. Stat. § 316.193(1)(b)–(c), 3(a)–(b), (c)3.a.

Generally, the statutory maximum sentence is 15 years’ imprison- ment. Fla. Stat. § 775.082(3)(c) (2002). 2 However, trial courts must determine the “lowest permissible sentence” based on Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code and “[i]f the lowest permissible sen- tence under the code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence . . . the sentence required by the code must be imposed.” Id. § 921.0024(2). Under the code, “[i]f the total sentence points are greater than or equal to 363, the court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment.” Id. Points are calculated in accord with Florida’s Criminal Pun- ishment Code Worksheet. Id. § 921.0024(1)(a). First, points are as- sessed for the “Primary Offense,” which is the most serious offense This is substantively identical with the current statute but has been renum- bered. See Fla. Stat. § 775.082(3)(d).

USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 8 of 11

Id. Victim injury points are not properly assessed unless the in- jury was a “direct result” of the offense. Id. § 921.0021(7)(a). In Sims, the Florida Supreme Court held that the “direct result” lan- guage required “that a causal connection must clearly exist be- tween the charged offense and the death of the victim.” 998 So. 2d at 506. The court went on to explain that “Sims was not charged with vehicular homicide or any other offense in which the crime actually involved the impact that caused the death. A conviction under that different circumstance would have satisfied the causa- tion requirement for the imposition of victim-injury points.” Id. Because Sims was instead convicted of leaving the scene of an acci- dent resulting in death, the court instead concluded that Sims was not on the hook for victim injury points because evidence estab- lished that the death occurred before the crime, which was merely leaving the scene. Id. at 506–07.

Here, we conclude that the district court did not err. Be- cause there is no indication that the summary denial of Rodriguez’s Apprendi claim on direct appeal was not on the merits, we presume USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 9 of 11

23-11338 Opinion of the Court 9 it was denied on the merits. Harrington, 562 U.S. at 99. Because no explanation was given, we must determine if there was any reason- able basis for the state trial court’s sentence. Id. at 98.

The state trial court’s sentence would be contrary to Ap- prendi if it sentenced Rodriguez over the statutory maximum based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. The ordinary statutory max- imum for DUI manslaughter is 15 years’ imprisonment. Fla. Stat. §§ 316.193(3)(c)3.a., 775.082(3)(d). Thus, Rodriguez’s life sentences were above the ordinary statutory maximum.

Though the state trial court did not explain its reasoning, its decision is fairly straightforward. The ordinary statutory maxi- mum is superseded by higher results produced under the Criminal Punishment Code. Fla. Stat. § 921.0024(2). If a defendant receives at least 363 sentence points, they may be sentenced to life impris- onment under the Criminal Punishment Code. Id. Because Rodri- guez was sentenced to life in prison, the state trial court apparently determined that he had more than 363 sentence points. While it is not entirely clear from the record, it appears that Rodriguez’s sen- tence points were generally calculated as follows: 74 points for the primary DUI Manslaughter offense; 148 points for the four second- ary DUI Manslaughter offenses, at 37 points per instance; and 600 points for the five victims’ deaths that he caused, at 120 points per USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 10 of 11

USCA11 Case: 23-11338 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 11 of 11

23-11338 Opinion of the Court 11 Thus, the jury found the necessary facts to satisfy the causa- tion requirement for Rodriguez’s sentence point total to exceed 363. As such, the state trial court’s sentence was not contrary to Apprendi because the facts underlying the enhancement were found by the jury. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. Ac- cordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Rodriguez’s petition on this ground.

IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order deny- ing Rodriguez’s habeas petition.

AFFIRMED.