govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-9_24-cv-80711-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 24-CV-80711-ROSENBERG 
 
FREDDIE LABOY MALAVE, 
 
 Petitioner,  
 
v.  
 
RICKY DIXON, Florida 
Department of Corrections,  
 
 Respondent. 
________________________________/ 
 
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [DE 1].  The Cour t has considered the Petition [DE 1], the 
Government’s Response [DE 10], and the court file.  For the reasons discussed below, the Petition 
is denied.  
After a trial by jury, a Florida state court sentenced the Petitioner for burglary of a dwelling. 
See DE 10 at 2.  The Petitioner appealed, his conviction was affirmed, and the Petitioner also filed 
various motions for post-c onviction relief.  After the denial of his requests fo r post-conviction 
relief, a Florida appellate court affirmed, and the Petitioner filed the Petition before this Court.  
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), a fede ral court may not gran t a state prisoner’s 
application for a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim already adjudicated on the merits in state 
court unless that adjudication “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 
determination of the facts in li ght of the evidence presented in  the State court proceeding.”  
Relatedly, a state court decision of law only warran ts federal habeas relief if the decision “was 
Case 9:24-cv-80711-RLR   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024   Page 1 of 3
2 
 
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2254(d)(1).   
Here, the Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas relief on one ground—that his trial 
counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress a cellphone.  The Petitioner 
previously made this argument to the Florida trial court and, after his motion was denied (following 
an evidentiary hearing), he appealed; the appellate court affirmed. See id. at 6. 
The Florida court found that c ounsel’s decision not to file a motion to  suppress was not 
ineffective assistance of counsel for at least two reasons. Id.at 28-29.  First, there was an adequate 
basis in the record to conclude that the se izure of the Petitioner’s cell phone was lawful. Id.  
Second, the cell phone containe d information that was helpful to the Petitioner’s defense (it also 
contained information arguably harmful to the defense), and counsel ha d reasonably concluded 
that, as a matter of strategy, the cell phone should be admitted as evidence on that basis. Id. 
Applying the mandatory deferential standard of review for habeas relief, this Court cannot 
conclude that the state proceedings “resulted in  a decision that was based on an unreasonable 
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”  Instead, 
the state court proceedings resulted in a ruling that was adequately based on evidence and was 
adequately based upon sound legal reasoning.  For these reasons and the reasons outlined in the 
Response, the Petitioner’s request for habeas relief is denied.  For the same reasons, no certificate 
of appealability shall issue. 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:  
1. The Petitioner’s Petition [DE 1] is DENIED;  
 
2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot;  
Case 9:24-cv-80711-RLR   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024   Page 2 of 3
3 
 
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE; and 
4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case.  
DONE AND ORDERED  in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 3rd day of 
September, 2024. 
      ________________________________ 
ROBIN L. ROSENBERG  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
cc: Counsel of Record 
Freddie Laboy Malave 
DOC# W10808 
Jackson Correctional Institution 
Inmate Mail 
5563 10th Street 
Malone, FL 32445-3144 
Case 9:24-cv-80711-RLR   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024   Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight