State v. Anthony M. Jackson
204 So. 3d 958
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Aug. 31, 2007, Jackson shot taxi driver Arnold Felix twice after a fare dispute; Felix survived. Jackson fled with Felix’s wallet, phone, and the cab keys, buried bloody clothing and evidence, and was later convicted of attempted first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, and aggravated battery with a firearm; sentenced to 30 years.
- At trial Jackson advanced insanity and self-defense defenses; the jury rejected insanity and convicted. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (36 So. 3d 688) and mandate issued June 16, 2010.
- Jackson filed a pro se 3.850 motion, later amended by counsel more than two years after the mandate to add claim J: trial counsel was ineffective for pursuing an unsupported insanity defense that opened the door to damaging privileged testimony and undermined self-defense.
- The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing limited to claim J, found trial counsel (Manuel) ineffective for pursuing insanity (including failing to preserve attorney-client privilege and misunderstanding the burden of proof), vacated the sentence, and ordered a new trial.
- The State appealed; the Fifth DCA reviewed Strickland performance and prejudice prongs, agreed counsel’s performance was deficient but held Jackson failed to show Strickland prejudice given overwhelming inculpatory evidence and inconsistencies in his self-defense claim, and reversed the postconviction court.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim J was procedurally barred/untimely | Amendment raised viable ineffective-assistance claim deserving evidentiary hearing | Claim J untimely and barred as new claim filed >2 years after mandate | Court found State waived untimeliness by not raising below; appellate review limited to issues presented below, so considered merits |
| Whether Manuel’s decision to pursue insanity and related trial acts constituted deficient performance under Strickland | Manuel pursued insanity under client/family pressure; ineffective for failing to protect privilege and misunderstanding law | Manuel’s choices were strategic; some errors excusable | Court agreed performance was deficient (failed to preserve attorney-client privilege re: Dr. Danziger; misapprehension of burden) |
| Whether counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Jackson under Strickland (reasonable probability of different outcome) | Opening door to rebuttal and privilege waiver harmed self-defense; prejudice exists | Evidence of guilt was overwhelming; self-defense internally inconsistent; no reasonable probability of different verdict | Court held Jackson did not prove prejudice; vacatur reversed |
| Whether presentation of both insanity and self-defense was necessarily inconsistent and reversible error | Insanity can be presented if it helps explain defendant’s belief of imminent danger | If insanity testimony negates self-defense, counsel’s tactic may be harmful but prejudice must be shown | Court acknowledged potential conflict but concluded no prejudice given facts and evidence against Jackson |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance test of deficient performance and prejudice)
- Graff v. State, 922 So. 2d 1058 (deference to postconviction factual findings; mixed questions reviewed)
- Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028 (appellate duty to scrutinize legal conclusions in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Breedlove v. State, 692 So. 2d 874 (attorney testimony not dispositive on effectiveness)
- Hannon v. State, 941 So. 2d 1109 (inconsistent defenses and counsel’s strategic choices)
- Manuel v. State, 162 So. 3d 1157 (attorney-client privilege for experts retained to prepare defense)
- Clarke v. State, 102 So. 3d 763 (distinguishing direct-appeal review from 3.850 evidentiary review)
- Allen v. State, 100 So. 3d 747 (same point on scope differences between direct appeal and collateral proceedings)
- Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105 (appellate review limited to issues presented to and decided by lower court)
- Cook v. State, 638 So. 2d 134 (State may waive procedural defenses by responding on merits)
- Martin v. State, 110 So. 3d 936 (insanity evidence may be consistent with self-defense when it explains perceived threat)
- Wallace v. State, 766 So. 2d 364 (permitting concurrent presentation of insanity and self-defense when consistent)