Whether a criminal defendant can demonstrate prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland when trial counsel fails to object to a jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force

No question identified. : This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1257/(a). Undersigned counsel asserts that good cause supports the requested extension of time. Undersigned counsel went on a preplanned family vacation in North Carolina during the week of January 19, 2026. Undersigned counsel was scheduled to return home to Florida on Friday, January 23, 2026. However, as a result of a severe winter storm, undersigned counsel was not able to travel and arrive back in Florida until the evening of Tuesday, January 27, 2026. Asa result, undersigned counsel was unable to work at his office as planned rom Saturday, January 24, 2026, through Tuesday, January 27, 2026. As a result of losing those three planned days of work, undersigned counsel fell behind and did not have sufficient time to complete the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this case. Undersigned counsel did not file this motion earlier as he did not expect the winter storm to affect his travel plans and anticipated having sufficient time to complete the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this case. Accordingly, undersigned counsel needs additional time to complete the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Petitioner, through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests an extension of time until March 4, 2026, to file the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Undersigned counsel has contacted Assistant Attorney General Rebecca McGuigan and is authorized to represent that she has no objection to the requested extension of time. Respectfully Submitted on February 2, 2026 /s/ William R. Ponall WILLIAM R. PONALL PONALL LAW 253 N. Orlando Ave., Ste 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-1144 Florida Bar No. 421634 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Application has been provided by email delivery to Assistant Attorney General Rebecca McGuigan, on this 2nd day of February, 2026. /s/ William R. Ponall WILLIAM R. PONALL Florida Bar No. 421634 SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA Case No. 6D2023-1319 Lower Tribunal No. 2012-CF-001864-A-O NIMA MoraDI, Appellant, Vv. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Julie H. O’Kane and Wayne C. Wooten, Judges. January 10, 2025 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND WRITTEN OPINION We grant in part the motion for rehearing and written opinion filed by Appellant, Nima Moradi, withdraw our prior per curiam affirmance, and substitute this opinion in its place. We will not entertain a subsequent motion for rehearing except on the postconviction ground raised in Moradi’s motion for rehearing and written opinion and addressed here. TRAVER, C.J. Nima Moradi appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.'! Moradi raised six grounds for relief, and we affirm five without further discussion. On the sixth ground, the postconviction court correctly concluded Moradi suffered no Strickland’ prejudice when trial counsel failed to object to a justifiable use of deadly force instruction. Moradi cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different had counsel submitted a proper instruction. We thus affirm. I. Background In 2012, the State charged Moradi with first-degree murder, carjacking, and kidnapping. Following his unsuccessful attempt to dismiss the indictment under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, the case proceeded to trial in 2015. The State theorized that Moradi lured Richard Luyo to his home intending to rob Luyo, a plan that ended in Luyo’s murder. Moradi focused on self-defense, insisting that he stabbed Luyo five times to protect himself from a knife attack. ' This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. ? Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685 (1984). 2 Moradi was the only eyewitness to the first part of the encounter because Luyo died before he could make a statement. At the time