Whether appellate counsel's failure to challenge jury separation constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and a manifest injustice under Strickland v. Washington and Anders v. California

STION(S) PRESENTED This Court ’s original jurisdiction to issue the Writ of Certiorari to complete exercising of its authority and jurisdiction is therefore properly invoked pursuant to Florida Appeals Attorney ineffectiveness, whom failed to file a fundamental reversible error in Mr. Bankston ’s case on direct appeal and thereby creating a manifest injustice in this case, contrary to the United States Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 988, cert, denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S. Ct. 1984, 95 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1987). Here in this case, “Appellant counsel was held ineffective for failing to challenge jury separation on appeal. Here, in Mr. Bankston ’s case, because Appellate counsel failed to raise this issue on appeal constitutes actual prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, supra., and in violation of Anders v. California, supra. Because Mr. Bankston rightfully had the authority to file a second successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under prima facie Florida case law cited in his initial petition in the 4th District Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court departed from the pertinent law under State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261, 288 (Fla. 2011). Also see, Muehleman v. State and Baker v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1165 (Fla. 2009). Under a manifest injustice exception Mr. Bankston should have been able to proceed under clearly established State law contrary to well-established Federal law. See, Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). Holding under Florida Law, 2 “Appellate Court has the power to reconsider and correct erroneous rulings [made in earlier appeals] in exceptional circumstances and where reliance on the previous decision would result in a manifest injustice. ” State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261,288 (Fla. 2011) quoting Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1165 (Fla. 2009). “The law of case does not rigidly hold a court to its former decisions, but not rigidly hold a Court to its former decisions, but is only addressed to its good sense. ” Higgins v. Cal Pruned Apricot Growers, directs a Court discretion it does not limit the tribunal ’s power. ” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983), citing S. Ry v. Clift, 260 U.S. 436, 444 (1912). Appellate courts have powers to reconsider and correct erroneous rulings made in earlier appeals or petitions in exceptional circumstances and where reliance on the previous decision would result in a manifest injustice. Here, Mr. Bankston was required to proceed under State law, which now constitutes a grave manifest injustice and a clear violation of due process of law under the Due Process Clause and the equal protection clause in violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments. 3