Vincent Wilkerson v. Superintendent Fayette SCI
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17380
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1997 Wilkerson assaulted Nasir Hill: knocked him unconscious, beat him with a gun, then shot him in the chest. He was tried and convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault.
- Jury instructions identified the attempted-murder act as the shooting; the aggravated-assault instruction required proof that defendant "caused or attempted to cause serious bodily injury," but did not specify which act satisfied that element. The general verdict form did not indicate which act supported which conviction.
- At sentencing the judge (not the jury) found "serious bodily injury" and imposed an enhanced sentence on the attempted-murder count under Pennsylvania law.
- On direct appeal Wilkerson argued state-law merger (relying on Commonwealth v. Anderson) and the Pennsylvania Superior Court treated the claim as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence question, concluding the convictions rested on two distinct acts (shooting and beating).
- Wilkerson then sought federal habeas relief asserting (1) double jeopardy because jury could have convicted on both counts based on the shooting alone, and (2) an Apprendi violation plus ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the judge’s judicial finding of serious bodily injury. The district court granted habeas relief on double jeopardy and denied the Apprendi claim; the Third Circuit reversed on double jeopardy and held the Apprendi claim time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilkerson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy / merger of attempted murder and aggravated assault | Jury instructions and verdict form allowed conviction on both counts based on the single act of shooting; that violates Double Jeopardy and merger principles. | Superior Court correctly treated the claim as sufficiency-based: evidence could support distinct convictions (shooting = attempted murder; beating = aggravated assault). | Reversed district court: state court s merits ruling was not an unreasonable application of federal law under AEDPA; no habeas relief. |
| Apprendi violation (judge found "serious bodily injury" and enhanced sentence) | Sentencing enhancement violated Apprendi because the jury did not find serious bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt; counsel was ineffective for not objecting/appealing. | The Commonwealth argued procedural defects (timeliness, procedural default, jurisdictional issues) and that any error was harmless. | Affirmed denial on merits procedurally: Third Circuit held Apprendi-related claims were untimely under AEDPA (did not relate back) and thus barred; even on merits error would be harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (examining whether a prior jury could have reasonably grounded its verdict on an issue that would preclude subsequent prosecution)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (review of jury instructions: whether there is a reasonable likelihood they were applied in a way that violates the Constitution)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
- Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (Double Jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for same offense)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (relation-back rule for amended habeas claims requires common core of operative facts)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (general verdicts that may rest on unconstitutional grounds require reversal)
- Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (AEDPA standard: state-court decisions must be reasonable, not merely wrong)
- United States v. Finley, 726 F.3d 483 (3d Cir.) (assessing whether separate convictions were based on different predicate acts)
- United States v. Chorin, 322 F.3d 274 (3d Cir.) (same-act analysis for multiple convictions)
- United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194 (3d Cir.) (issue-preclusion/double jeopardy: impossible to determine prior jury s definitive findings)
- Cotton v. United States, 535 U.S. 625 (Apprendi-type error cannot satisfy plain-error prejudice when the omitted fact is "essentially uncontroverted")