Opinion ID: 3049318
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Digsby’s Appellate Counsel

Text: 18 In this case, we cannot say that the state courts’ refusal to grant relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” as required for Digsby to be entitled to habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).4 This is because Digsby has not shown collateral estoppel bars his gun conviction, and thus his appellate counsel was not ineffective for not raising the collateral estoppel claim on appeal. In this context, Digsby’s collateral estoppel claim depends on a finding that the jury in the first trial “necessarily determined” that he did not possess a firearm during his fight with Willey, and that possession of a firearm was “an essential element” of his conviction for felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm. Ohayon, 483 F.3d at 1286. Possession of a firearm was certainly an essential element of Digsby’s conviction in the second trial. See Fla. Stat. § 790.23 (defining crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon). Thus, the question here is only whether the jury in the first trial necessarily determined that Digsby never possessed a firearm during his confrontation with Willey. Digsby argues that “[t]he only factual basis for the jury’s verdict of not guilty as to Count 1 [aggravated battery] was the Defendant’s assertion of self- 4 Alternatively, even if de novo review applies, we would affirm the district court’s denial of Digsby’s § 2254 petition. 19 defense.” From this, he argues that the jury necessarily determined that he did not unlawfully possess the firearm before, during, or after his confrontation with Willey. Despite Digsby’s assertions, we cannot “ascertain the basis of the acquittal” in his first trial, and therefore cannot say that collateral estoppel applies. Brown, 983 F.2d at 202. While the jury in the first trial may have concluded that Digsby did not unlawfully possess the firearm, it did not necessarily make that conclusion, and collateral estoppel does not apply. See Ohayon, 483 F.3d at 1286 (stating that collateral estoppel applies only when the jury necessarily decided a fact in favor of a defendant and that fact is an essential element of the offense in the second trial). It is well-established that a jury may believe a witness’s testimony in whole or in part. United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 316 (11th Cir. 1995). Here, for example, the jury could have believed Swindell’s testimony that he initially saw the gun in Digsby’s back pocket, thereby establishing unlawful possession at the outset of the confrontation, and still concluded that the firearm accidentally went off in the course of the physical altercation between Digsby and Willey. That is only one of a number of scenarios suggesting the possibility that Digsby unlawfully possessed the firearm at the start of the fight, and still that Digsby never unlawfully brandished or used the weapon during the ensuing struggle. 20 Accordingly, we conclude that the gun possession issue was not “necessarily determined in [Digsby’s] favor” in the first trial, because we cannot “ascertain the basis of [his] acquittal.” Brown, 983 F.2d at 202. Because a rational jury in the first case could have grounded its verdict on an issue other than the one which Digsby seeks to foreclose from consideration, his collateral estoppel claim fails. See Ohayon, 483 F.3d at 1286 (stating standard for application of collateral estoppel). Because Digsby’s collateral estoppel claim fails, he cannot demonstrate that his appellate counsel’s failure to bring the collateral estoppel claim on direct appeal was deficient performance or that it prejudiced his defense. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068. Thus, the state courts’ determination that Digsby did not receive ineffective assistance from appellate counsel was not “contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Because Digsby has not shown that the state courts’ rejection of his ineffective appellate counsel claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland or other clearly established federal law, we cannot grant habeas relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Digsby’s § 2254 21 petition. AFFIRMED. 22