Skinner v. State
137 So. 3d 1164
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- William Skinner was convicted by a jury of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm (two counts) and burglary while armed with a firearm; the attempted-murder counts had lesser-included attempted-manslaughter-by-act counts.
- At trial the court instructed the jury using the then-standard Florida attempted-manslaughter-by-act instruction (the pre-Williams instruction).
- Skinner appealed; the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and sentence (Skinner v. State).
- While Skinner’s direct appeal was pending, Florida courts were divided on whether the standard attempted-manslaughter-by-act instruction constituted fundamental error (Lamb v. State vs. Williams v. State conflict ultimately resolved by the Florida Supreme Court).
- On habeas review, this Court found trial counsel did not object to the instruction and appellate counsel failed to raise the instructional issue or notify this Court of the district-court conflict.
- The Court granted habeas relief only as to the attempted manslaughter counts, ordering a new trial on those counts; the burglary conviction was left intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attempted-manslaughter-by-act jury instruction was fundamental error | Skinner: the pre-Williams instruction is fundamentally erroneous and requires reversal of those counts | State: no relief; trial instruction was proper or error was not preserved | Held: Instruction was fundamental error under Williams v. State; warrants relief on attempted-manslaughter counts |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the instruction issue | Skinner: appellate counsel performed deficiently by not raising the instruction issue or notifying court of inter-district conflict | State: appellate counsel not ineffective (or errors not prejudicial) | Held: Appellate counsel’s omission was a serious deficiency that undermined confidence in the appeal |
| Whether relief should extend to all convictions or only affected counts | Skinner: sought broader relief (new trial on all counts) | State: reversal should be limited to counts affected by error | Held: New trial limited to attempted-manslaughter counts only; burglary conviction remains valid |
| Standards for habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Skinner: satisfies two-prong test (deficiency + prejudice to appellate process) | State: Argues standards not met | Held: Two-prong test satisfied here (deficient performance and undermined appellate process confidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court: pre-Williams attempted-manslaughter-by-act instruction is fundamental error)
- Skinner v. State, 100 So.3d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions)
- Lamb v. State, 18 So.3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (conflicting district-court decision on attempted-manslaughter instruction)
- Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852 (Fla. 2007) (sets two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in habeas)
- Granberry v. State, 919 So.2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (appellate counsel may be ineffective for failing to raise favorable intervening decisions)