Princelin Joseph v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, No. 13-12239 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-12239 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-12239 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21050-DLG PRINCELIN JOSEPH, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 30, 2014) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Princelin Joseph, a Florida prisoner serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and use of a firearm during a felony, Case: 13-12239 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 2 of 4 appeals pro se the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue whether the district court complied with Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), when it failed to address Joseph s claim that the trial court erred in its jury instruction about manslaughter. We affirm. In our review of the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. Prevatte v. French, 547 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2008). We consider only the issue presented in the certificate of appealability. Spencer v. Sec y, Dep t of Corr., 609 F.3d 1170, 1180 (11th Cir. 2010). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). In Clisby, we held that, when a district court fails to address any claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we will vacate the district court s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims. 960 F.2d at 938. We defined a claim for relief as any allegation of a constitutional violation. Id. at 936. In this context, it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 480 (1991). 2 Case: 13-12239 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 3 of 4 Instead, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Id. at 68, 112 S. Ct. at 480. The district court did not err under Clisby. Joseph s assertion that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that intent to kill was an element of the lesser-included crime of manslaughter did not allege a federal constitutional claim. Joseph alleged instead that the trial court erred as a matter of state law. State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 2010) (holding that the crime of manslaughter by act does not require that the State prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim ). Joseph s petition did not mention any provision of federal law or any federal standard. He argued that the jury instruction caused fundamental error and tainted the underlying fairness of the entire proceeding, but those arguments addressed matters of state law. Under Florida law, in the absence of an objection at trial, jury instructions may be challenged on appeal only if fundamental error occurred, Lane v. State, 867 So. 2d 539, 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004), which Florida law describes as error that reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error, Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366, 370 (Fla. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Florida courts have described as fundamental error the erroneous addition of an element for a lesser-included offense in a jury instruction because it taints the underlying fairness of the entire 3 Case: 13-12239 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 4 of 4 proceeding. Hankerson v. State, 831 So. 2d 235, 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002). The Supreme Court has explained that the fact that [a jury] instruction was allegedly incorrect under state law is not a basis for habeas relief. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 71 72, 112 S. Ct. at 482. We affirm the denial of Joseph s petition. AFFIRMED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
