Did the Eleventh Circuit reach beyond the threshold inquiry for a certificate of appealability and deny a COA based on the merits of the appeal?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In cases such as Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), and Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), this Court found deficient performance where trial counsel neglected to follow up on important leads in documents they received before trial. Crucial to this Court’s rulings in those cases was the question of whether the attorney’s decision not to follow up on the leads by investigating was reasonable. See Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 383-84; Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521-22. In this case, Petitioner DeAngelo Horn faced a serious charge of sexual battery of a minor, and a potential sentence of life without parole. Nevertheless, trial counsel failed to follow up on leads provided to him in pretrial documents or investigate some of the most critical aspects of Petitioner’s case, including a prior false allegation of sex abuse by the alleged victim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit refused to allow Petitioner the opportunity to appeal the denial of federal habeas corpus relief on this issue. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Eleventh Circuit reach beyond the threshold inquiry for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)—whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s decision—and deny a COA based on the merits of the appeal? 2. Could reasonable jurists debate whether the district court erred in ruling that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, given that the court failed to consider whether trial counsel’s decision not to follow up on leads or investigate further was in itself reasonable? 3. Could reasonable jurists debate whether the district court erred in determining that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, given that the court conflated the deficient performance prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard with the prejudice prong? i