Mitchell A. Insignares v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11788
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2000 Insignares was convicted by a Florida jury of attempted first-degree murder (with a 20-year mandatory minimum), discharging a firearm in public, and criminal mischief; sentences ran concurrently. The criminal-mischief conviction was later vacated on appeal.
- Post-conviction, the state court in 2002 resentenced Insignares, reducing the attempted-murder term to 27 years; later, in 2009, the state judge reduced the mandatory-minimum on the attempted-murder count from 20 to 10 years and entered a corrected sentence and new judgment.
- Insignares filed a federal habeas petition in 2007, which was dismissed as untimely; he filed a second federal petition in 2011 raising largely the same claims as in 2007.
- The district court concluded the 2011 petition was not "second or successive" under Magwood because it was the first challenge to the 2009 judgment and granted a COA on several ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that because the 2009 resentencing produced a new judgment, the 2011 petition was not successive and reviewed the merits, affirming the denial of habeas relief on the ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 §2254 petition is "second or successive" under AEDPA after the 2009 resentencing | Insignares: resentencing produced a new judgment, so the 2011 petition is the first challenge to that judgment and not successive | State: 2007 petition raised same claims, so the 2011 petition is successive and required authorization | Court held the 2009 resentencing produced a new judgment; under Magwood and Ferreira the 2011 petition was not second or successive, so district court had jurisdiction |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to depose/investigate and impeach witness Correa | Insignares: counsel’s failure left impeachment evidence undiscovered (possible pending charges) and was deficient and prejudicial | State: counsel strategically cross-examined Correa at trial; no convincing proof Correa had pending charges; other evidence tied Insignares to the crime so no prejudice | Held: State court reasonably found no deficient performance or prejudice; claim denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to remove or question an allegedly sleeping juror | Insignares: juror slept during critical portions, counsel should have moved to remove or colloquy juror | State: trial judge found juror was nodding but awake; counsel moved for mistrial at trial; no clear and convincing evidence to rebut state finding | Held: AEDPA deference applies; record supports trial judge’s finding and state court reasonably rejected Strickland claim |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s closing remarks and whether cumulative error occurred | Insignares: prosecutor misrepresented facts and referred to severed crimes; counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial; errors cumulatively denied a fair trial | State: many remarks were non-prejudicial or proper advocacy; counsel’s choices were strategic; even if some comments were improper, no reasonable probability of a different outcome; no aggregate error | Held: State court reasonably rejected each objection as non-meritorious or non-prejudicial; cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (discusses when an intervening new judgment makes a habeas petition not "second or successive")
- Ferreira v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 494 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir.) (resentencing produces a new judgment that restarts AEDPA limits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (explains prejudice standard under Strickland and deference to state-court determinations)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (AEDPA jurisdictional rules for successive petitions)
- Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279 (7th Cir.) (addressed whether resentencing allows renewed challenge to underlying conviction; contrasted approach)