Allen v. State
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | Allen v. State, 261 So.3d 1255 (Fla. 2019) |
| Decision Date | 07 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. SC17-1623,SC17-1623 |
| Parties | Margaret A. ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
REVISED OPINION
Margaret Allen, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals an order denying her motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court's order denying Allen's motion for postconviction relief.
In 2010, Allen was convicted of the kidnapping and first-degree murder of Wenda Wright. Allen v. State , 137 So.3d 946, 953 (Fla. 2013). On direct appeal, we affirmed her convictions and sentences, including a sentence of death for the murder, and summarized the guilt-phase evidence as follows:
Id. at 951-53. The record also shows that while the autopsy report concluded that cocaine intoxication was a cause of Wright's death, Dr. Qaiser testified that he did not agree with the conclusion.
After convicting Allen of kidnapping and first-degree murder, Allen's jury unanimously recommended a death sentence. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation, finding two aggravators1 and four nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.2 On appeal, this Court affirmed the death sentence. Id. at 969. Allen's death sentence became final in 2014. Allen v. Florida , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 362, 190 L.Ed.2d 260 (2014).
Thereafter, Allen timely filed her initial motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, raising fourteen claims with subparts. Allen sought leave to amend her rule 3.851 motion to add a Hurst v. Florida claim and a Hurst v. State claim.3 The postconviction court accepted the amendments and held an evidentiary hearing on the fourteen claims.4 The trial court denied the motion in its entirety, including summarily denying the Hurst v. Florida and the Hurst v. State claims.
Allen appealed the denial of her rule 3.851 motion, arguing that the postconviction court erred with respect to the following claims: (1) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments and misstatements and for failing to move for a mistrial during guilt phase closings; (2) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present certain mitigation evidence; (3) that trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting testimony from former-codefendant-turned-State-witness Quintin that Allen poured chemicals on the victim; (4) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Qaiser's testimony that unconscious people feel...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Hilton v. State
...are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards." Allen v. State , 261 So. 3d 1255, 1269 (Fla. 2019) (quoting Peterson v. State , 221 So. 3d 571, 583 (Fla. 2017) ). Accordingly, "strategic decisions do not constitute ineffe......
-
Sparre v. State
...factor is whether a defendant can show that an expert was available at the time of trial to rebut the State's expert. Allen v. State , 261 So. 3d 1255, 1283 (Fla. 2019) (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Riechmann , 777 So. 2d 342, 354 (Fla. 2000) ).Here, competent, substantial evidence ......
- Thompson v. State, SC18-1435
-
State v. Bishop
...different,’ where ‘[a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ " Allen v. State , 261 So. 3d 1255, 1269 (Fla. 2019) (alternation in original) (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).Here, Defendant's main contention in argu......
-
Introduction
...; State did not mention collateral evidence during voir dire; and mentioned it only briefly during opening statement. Allen v. State , 261 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 2019). Trial counsel’s failure to object or request a curative instruction when the prosecutor misstated during closing argument that,......