In Digsby v. McNeil, No. 09-10978 (Dec. 7, 2010), the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a Florida inmate who claimed that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise a collateral estoppel claim in his state direct appeal.
At a first trial, Digsby was acquitted of aggravated battery. At a second trial involving the same incident, Digsby was convicted of unlawful firearm possession. Digsby claimed that his appellate lawyer was ineffective in failing to argue on appeal that because the jury that acquitted determined that Digsby never possessed a firearm, collateral estoppel barred his conviction for firearm possession arising out of the same incident.
The Court found, however, that while the jury that acquitted might have found that Digsby did not possess a firearm, it did not “necessarily” so find. The jury might have concluded that the firearm accidentally went off, while in Digsby’s possession, and therefore acquitted him of aggravated battery. If so, Digsby would have nonetheless possessed the firearm – and been liable for unlawful firearm possession. His appellate counsel was therefore not ineffective in failing to raise this claim on direct appeal.
