Cyr v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
• Docket Number: 8:22-cv-2775-JLB-LSG
• Decision Date: 05 January 2026
• Citation: Cyr v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 8:22-cv-2775-JLB-LSG (M.D. Fla. Jan 05, 2026)
• Parties: ROBERT CYR, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
• Writing for the Court: JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

ROBERT CYR, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 8:22-cv-2775-JLB-LSG

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

January 5, 2026

ORDER

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Robert Cyr, a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 2.) The Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections (“Respondent”) filed a response in opposition to the petition. (Doc. 9.) Cyr filed a reply. (Doc. 13.)

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the state court record, and the entire file, the Court concludes that none of Cyr's claims entitles him to federal habeas relief. Because the Court was able to resolve the petition on the record, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007).

I. Background and Procedural History

On the evening of October 3, 2010, Cyr and his girlfriend, Jennifer Crawford, robbed a gas station convenience store in Hernando County, Florida. (Doc. 10-1 Ex. F, at 153, 155, 157, 162-64.)^[1] While Crawford stood lookout outside, Cyr entered the store, pointed a shotgun at the cashier, and said, “This is a f*cking robbery.” (Id. at 30, 160, 162-63.) Cyr was wearing a black ski mask and batting gloves. (Id. at 30, 45-46, 87.) When the cashier struggled to open the register, Cyr fired his shotgun at a cabinet. (Id. at 33.) The cashier placed approximately $90 in cash and several cartons of cigarettes in a black duffel bag. (Id. at 34-35 161, 164.) Cyr and Crawford fled the scene in Crawford's Toyota Camry. (Id. at 158, 163.)

Six days later, Deputy Stephen Miller spotted Crawford's car, which was the subject of a be-on-the-lookout (“BOLO”) report. (Id. at 71.) Cyr drove while Crawford sat in the front passenger seat. (Id. at 165.) After discovering that the car's tag had expired, Deputy Miller activated his emergency lights. (Id. at 73-74.) A chase ensued. (Id. at 74-75.) Cyr lost control of the car after running over police-deployed spike strips. (Id. at 75, 166.) When the car stopped, Cyr grabbed a shotgun and ran toward an elementary school. (Id. at 167, 171-72.) Officers apprehended Cyr near the school's entrance. (Id. at 96-97.) He was wearing batting gloves, and he had shotgun shells in his pocket. (Id. at 89, 98.) Officers later found the shotgun in nearby bushes. (Id. at 105.) Crawford was arrested outside her car, which contained a black duffel bag and a black ski mask. (Id. at 108, 115, 168.)

Two detectives interviewed Cyr at the police station. (Id., Ex. MM.) He initially denied any involvement in the robbery. (Id. at 24.) After speaking to Crawford, however, Cyr confessed to robbing the convenience store. (Id., Ex. AA, at 277.) He claimed that the gun “went off by accident,” and that the cashier gave him “money” and “[c]igarettes.” (Id. at 277-78.) Crawford allowed law enforcement to search the house she shared with Cyr. (Id. at 144.) There, officers found a long-sleeved Dickies shirt that matched the cashier's description of the robber's clothing. (Id. at 136, 145, 160-61.)

Cyr was charged with one count of robbery with a firearm. (Id., Ex. A.) The case went to trial. (Id., Ex. F.) Crawford testified for the prosecution, providing a detailed account of Cyr's role in the robbery. (Id. at 152-69.) The cashier testified as well. (Id. at 27.) She could not identify the robber, but she claimed that several items recovered by law enforcement-the shotgun, the duffel bag, and the Dickies shirt-matched what she saw during the robbery. (Id. at 32, 34, 38-40.) The jury found Cyr guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. (Id., Exs. G, J.)

After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Cyr moved for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. (Id., Exs. R, V, Y.) The postconviction court summarily denied some claims; the rest were denied after an evidentiary hearing. (Id., Exs. AA, CC, DD.) The appellate court affirmed the denial of relief in an unexplained decision. (Id., Ex. HH.) This federal habeas petition followed. (Doc. 2.)

II. Governing Legal Principles

A. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) Under the AEDPA, federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). In this context, “clearly established federal law” consists of the governing legal principles, and not the dicta, set forth in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court at the time the state court issued its decision. White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 420 (2014); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 74 (2006) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000)).

A decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if the state court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law; or (2) reached a different result from the Supreme Court when faced with materially indistinguishable facts. Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 2010); Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 16 (2003). A decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established law if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle, but applies it to the facts of the petitioner's case in an objectively unreasonable manner, Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 134 (2005), or “if the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.” Bottoson v. Moore, 234 F.3d 526, 531 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 406).

The section 2254(d) standard is both mandatory and difficult to meet. To demonstrate entitlement to federal habeas relief, the petitioner must show that the state court's ruling was “so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” White, 572 U.S. at 420 (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011)). Moreover, when reviewing a claim under section 2254(d), a federal court must presume that any “determination of a factual issue made by a State court” is correct, and the petitioner bears “the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e).

A state court's summary rejection of a claim, even without explanation, qualifies as an adjudication on the merits, warranting deference. Ferguson v. Culliver, 527 F.3d 1144, 1146 (11th Cir. 2008). Generally, in the case of a silent affirmance, a federal habeas court will “look through” the unreasoned opinion and presume that the affirmance rests upon the specific reasons given by the last court to provide a reasoned opinion. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806 (1991); Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). However, the presumption that the appellate court relied on the same reasoning as the lower court can be rebutted “by evidence of, for instance, an alternative ground that was argued [by the state] or that is clear in the record” showing an alternative likely basis for the silent affirmance. Sellers, 138 S.Ct. at 1196.

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining whether a convicted person is entitled to relief on the ground that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). A petitioner must establish that counsel's performance was deficient and fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. A showing on only one prong will not support an ineffective assistance claim. Id. at 687 (“Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.”).

The focus of inquiry under Strickland's performance prong is “reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688. In reviewing counsel's performance, a court must adhere to the presumption that “counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance[.]” Id. at 689 (citation omitted). A court must “judge the reasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct,” applying a highly deferential level of judicial scrutiny. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690). Proving Strickland prejudice “requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. C. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

The AEDPA precludes federal courts, absent exceptional circumstances, from granting habeas relief unless a petitioner has exhausted all means of available relief under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Exhaustion of state remedies requires that the state prisoner “fairly presen[t] federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights[.]” Duncan v. Henry, ...