Emerson Pinkney v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
876 F.3d 1290
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Emerson Pinkney shot and killed Roy Williams in Jones’s apartment; Pinkney testified he was unarmed and that the shooting was accidental or in self‑defense.
- Pinkney was charged with manslaughter with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary with assault while armed, and possession of a firearm by a felon; a jury convicted him of all counts and he received life in prison.
- At trial the court instructed the jury on self‑defense and the ‘‘forcible felony’’ exception to the justifiable‑use‑of‑deadly‑force defense, stating that the defense is not available if the defendant was attempting to commit or committing manslaughter.
- Trial and appellate counsel did not object to or raise the forcible‑felony instruction issue on direct appeal; the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed and later summarily denied Pinkney’s state habeas claim of ineffective appellate assistance.
- Pinkney filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the instruction was fundamental error under Florida law; the district court denied relief and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forcible‑felony jury instruction was legally erroneous under Florida law | The instruction was erroneous because it applied the forcible‑felony exception using the same offense (manslaughter) the defendant invoked for self‑defense, which Florida cases forbid | Instruction mirrored model language and counsel’s failure to object was reasonable; district court said it was constitutionally acceptable | Court: Instruction was erroneous under Florida precedents (circularly barred self‑defense) |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the unpreserved instruction error on direct appeal | Pinkney: counsel was ineffective under Strickland for not raising a fundamentally erroneous jury instruction on appeal | State: if error was not fundamental under Florida law, raising it would have been futile and counsel was not ineffective; state appellate denial implies non‑fundamental error | Court: Under AEDPA, reasonable to interpret state court as having concluded error was not fundamental; thus counsel not ineffective |
| Whether the instruction error constituted "fundamental error" under Florida law (so it could be raised despite no contemporaneous objection) | Pinkney: the instruction was fundamental because it removed self‑defense from jury consideration | State: Florida law restricts relief for unpreserved errors to rare, compelling cases; appellate court implicitly found no fundamental error | Court: Error was not fundamental under Florida law given the whole record (other defenses existed; self‑defense was weak) |
| Whether federal habeas relief is available when the state court denied relief without opinion on a state‑law fundamental‑error question | Pinkney: federal court should correct state law error and find counsel ineffective | State: federal court must defer and adopt a reasonable interpretation consistent with state law and Supreme Court precedent | Court: Under Harrington/AEDPA, federal court must assume reasonable grounds for state denial; affirmed denial of habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (explains AEDPA deference to state court decisions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel test)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas courts do not reexamine state‑law determinations)
- Wainwright v. Goode, 464 U.S. 78 (state appellate court views on state law are binding on federal courts)
- Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008) (forcible‑felony exception applies only when defendant commits an independent forcible felony)
- Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding similar forcible‑felony instruction can be fundamental error where self‑defense is the sole disputed issue)
- Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1996) (defines fundamental error standard)
- Smith v. State, 521 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1988) (fundamental‑error doctrine to be applied rarely; review full record)
- Delva v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (contemporaneous‑objection rule; unpreserved errors cognizable on appeal only if fundamental)