David Mathias v. Superintendent Frackville SCI
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16394
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- David Mathias was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of first-degree murder and conspiracy related to a fatal 2005 shooting; jury convicted him of both murder and conspiracy and he received life plus an additional term.
- At trial, the judge gave internally inconsistent accomplice-liability instructions: earlier correctly required that an accomplice share the specific intent to kill, but later repeatedly stated the jury could convict if either Mathias or Jarmon had the specific intent.
- The conspiracy instruction incorporated the specific-intent element for first-degree murder; the jury nonetheless convicted on conspiracy.
- On direct appeal and PCRA review, state courts found claims waived or rejected ineffective-assistance claims, concluding any instructional imprecision did not produce prejudice given the conspiracy verdict.
- Mathias filed a §2254 habeas petition alleging due-process error in the murder instruction and ineffective assistance for appellate counsel; the District Court granted relief after applying de novo review and relying on Francis v. Franklin.
- The Third Circuit considered: jurisdiction and timeliness of Mathias’s untimely cross-appeal; whether a COA is required for cross-appeals; and whether the District Court erred in granting habeas relief on the murder instruction and related Strickland claim under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mathias) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(a)(3) timeliness for cross-appeal is jurisdictional | Rule 4(a)(3) should be treated as jurisdictional and thus Mathias’s untimely cross-appeal is barred | Rule 4(a)(3) is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule and courts may excuse noncompliance | Rule 4(a)(3) is nonjurisdictional; the court excused Mathias’s untimely cross-appeal in the interest of justice |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) is required for a petitioner's cross-appeal | Mathias argued COA not required or was unnecessary here | COA is a statutory gatekeeper that applies to habeas appeals, including cross-appeals | COA is required for a petitioner’s cross-appeal; Mathias failed to satisfy the substantial-showing standard and COA denied |
| Whether the Superior Court’s adjudication of the ineffective-assistance claim (failure to challenge murder instruction) was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland under AEDPA | Mathias: state court unreasonably applied law; de novo review required—prejudice shown because contradictory instructions could have relieved prosecution of proving specific intent | Commonwealth: state court reasonably applied Strickland; any imprecision was harmless given conspiracy conviction and correct portions of charge | Superior Court decision was not contrary to Strickland; under AEDPA deferential review, denial of habeas on ineffective-assistance claim was appropriate |
| Whether the inconsistent first-degree murder instruction violated due process and warranted habeas relief | Mathias: instructions created a reasonable likelihood jury understood element (specific intent) unconstitutionally, citing Francis | Commonwealth: state court reasonably resolved the instruction as a whole; subsequent cases (Middleton) and the conspiracy verdict cure any error; any error harmless | Superior Court’s denial not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law; any error was harmless under Brecht — habeas relief reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (internally inconsistent jury instructions may require reversal unless cured)
- Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (2004) (state-court reasonable determinations about ambiguous instructions deserve deference)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard for state-court decisions)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (statutory appeal deadline is jurisdictional)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error standard for habeas: substantial and injurious effect)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense)