Brant v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. SC14–787 , No. SC14–2278.,SC14–787 |
| Citation | 197 So.3d 1051 |
| Parties | Charles Grover BRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Charles Grover Brant, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
197 So.3d 1051
Charles Grover BRANT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Charles Grover Brant, Petitioner,
v.
Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent.
No. SC14–787
No. SC14–2278.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 30, 2016.
Marie–Louise Samuels Parmer of The Samuels Parmer Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Christina Zuccaro, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Charles Grover Brant appeals an order denying his motion to vacate his convictions and sentences—including a conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death—filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See
art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief and deny Brant's habeas petition.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 2, 2004, twenty-one-year-old Sara Radfar was found dead in her home. Brant v. State, 21 So.3d 1276, 1277 (Fla.2009). A rear window of her duplex was open, and the front door was locked from the inside. Id. Radfar's body was found in the bathtub with water running over it. Id. A plastic bag was found over her head, and a dog leash, an electrical cord, and a women's stocking were found around her neck. Id. The cause of death was determined to be strangulation and suffocation. Id.
During a canvas of the neighborhood, detectives spoke with Brant, who was a neighbor of the victim. Id. Brant initially denied any involvement in the murder and told the officers that on the night of the homicide, he saw a man with long hair in a white button-down shirt with Radfar and that the next day, he saw a man in a yellow raincoat and black pants running behind his residence. Id. As part of the homicide investigation, Brant's garbage was collected from outside his home. Id. In it, investigators discovered Radfar's debit card, a man's white cotton shirt, a yellow raincoat, a pair of black pants, a mass of long, brown hair, four latex gloves, and a box that had contained women's stockings. Id.
Brant was interviewed again on July 4, 2004. Id. at 1278. During that interview, Brant confessed to Radfar's murder. Id. Brant explained that he went to Radfar's home on July 1, 2004, to take pictures of her tile floor, which he had installed, for his portfolio. Id. Radfar let him in, and while he was taking photographs, Brant grabbed Radfar, dragged her into one of the bedrooms, and sexually assaulted her. Id. He put a sock in her mouth to quiet her and then started to choke and suffocate her. Id. When he thought that she had either lost consciousness or died, he started walking around in the house. Id. When Radfar regained consciousness and ran to the front door, Brant dragged her back into the bedroom and again began to choke and suffocate her. Id. He stated that the choking and suffocation went on for some time. Id. Brant then took Radfar, who was still breathing and hiccupping, to the bathroom and put her in the tub. Id. He wrapped a stocking, a dog leash, and an electrical cord around her neck. Id. After Radfar died in the tub, Brant moved her car out of the driveway, cleaned up the duplex, changed his clothes, and walked home. Id. Brant also stated that he went back into Radfar's residence the next day and tried to wipe away his fingerprints. Id.
In May 2007, Brant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, sexual battery, kidnapping, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and burglary with assault or battery. Id. at 1277. After a failed attempt to seat a penalty-phase jury in August 2007, Brant waived his right to a jury, and the penalty phase proceeded before the trial judge. The evidence presented during the penalty phase was set forth in our opinion on direct appeal as follows:
The State ... called Melissa Ann McKinney, Brant's former wife, who testified that she and Brant were married from June 1991 until December 2004 and that they have two sons together. McKinney explained that she and Brant met in 1990 when they were students at a Bible college in Virginia but left the school voluntarily before either graduated....
McKinney explained that she and Brant separated eight or nine times during
their thirteen-year marriage due to Brant's drug use. Brant used marijuana continuously and began using ecstasy around 1999. McKinney testified that Brant began using methamphetamine about six months before the murder. He obtained a package of it “like every week.” McKinney explained that while using methamphetamine, Brant would stay up for four or five nights in a row without sleep and then crash. During the first few days of a cycle, he would be very productive and “cheerful ... in a better mood but he was always fidgety.” When Brant would start coming off the drug, he would not finish tasks because he was looking for more drugs. By day four or five, he was “[i]rritable, snappy.” McKinney explained that during the six months Brant was using methamphetamine, “he became a different person” and “it seemed like he didn't care anymore. He didn't—all he wanted was that drug, and he didn't care if he finished jobs. He didn't care about his family. I mean, he just he became obsessed with sex.” Beginning about two weeks before the murder, McKinney noticed Brant talking to himself while he worked.
McKinney also testified that in approximately 2000, Brant asked her to participate in sex games involving force. About two years before the murder, the games became rougher, and because she was afraid she would be hurt, McKinney began to object. Brant would surprise McKinney by hiding in the house, wearing a mask and latex gloves, and grabbing her from behind. McKinney stated that she believed Brant sometimes would even hide his car to give the impression that he was not at home in order to surprise her more effectively. She explained that during that two-year period, they had intercourse almost daily and that Brant “would get violent” and “do the scaring” every couple of weeks.
McKinney testified that Brant became sneakier and more violent when he began using methamphetamine. For example, on Wednesday, June 30, 2004, the night before the murder, Brant hid in a closet and attacked McKinney when she came into the room. He put her on her stomach on the bed, bound her hands, and attempted to put a sock in her mouth. McKinney explained that she was able to get away from Brant and stayed in the bathroom that night. McKinney stated that she believed Brant was on methamphetamine when he attacked her. He had started staying up on Sunday of that week and had “been up for quite a few days.” McKinney further explained that on the morning of Thursday, July 1, 2004, she threatened to go to the police if the games did not stop.
McKinney further testified that on Thursday, Brant was at home when she returned from work at around 6 or 6:30 p.m. McKinney took their sons to see a movie that evening. Brant was invited to attend, but he declined. McKinney stated that they returned home at around 11 p.m. Brant was in the kitchen washing dishes. He was acting nice, which surprised McKinney because they had been angry with each other for a few days. McKinney testified that Brant seemed to be under the influence of drugs when she returned—he was “speedy” and “fidgeting.” Brant asked McKinney to cut his hair, which she did. McKinney testified that Brant slept in the bed with her that night, but they did not have sex. McKinney testified that she next saw Brant between 6 and 7 p.m. on Friday. Brant was writing a statement for the police. McKinney testified that he appeared to be under the influence of drugs at that time. She
said that “[h]e was acting nervous. He was just acting all over the place, like he was on the drug.”...
The defense called several lay witnesses and two mental health experts to establish mitigating circumstances.
Crystal Florence Coleman, Brant's mother, testified that their family had a history of depression and other mental health conditions. She also testified about Brant's childhood. She stated that once Brant could walk, “he started beating his head against the floor” and “pounding holes in the walls.” She stated that Brant ate plaster and fertilizer as a child. When Brant was around five, Crystal married Marvin Coleman. Crystal testified that Marvin, who drank heavily, would spank or whip Brant over trivial matters until he bled, would threaten Brant, and “was very derogatory toward” Brant.
Sherry Lee Brant–Coleman, Brant's older sister, similarly testified that Brant's stepfather was an alcoholic and “a bully” to Brant. Sherry testified that Marvin singled Brant out from the other children for more criticism and physical abuse. Sherry also testified about Brant's behavior shortly after the murder. She saw Brant at their mother's Orlando home in early July 2004. She was informed that Brant had told their half-brother, Gar[ ]ett Coleman, that he was involved in what happened to [the victim] and “that he was hallucinating and he had—was going to turn himself in.” Sherry explained that she and several family members and friends went with Brant to a police substation, which was closed because it was a holiday weekend. They then
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bench v. State
..., 635 F.3d 1074, 1090 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding PET scan of brain could not be used to diagnosis Pseudocyesis); Brant v. State , 197 So.3d 1051, 1071 (Fla. 2016) (finding neuro-imaging could not identify abnormalities as cause of criminal acts); Foster v. State , 132 So.3d 40, 58 (Fla. 2013)......
-
Davis v. State
...then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence." Id. at 40. See also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla.2016) (relying upon Mullens to deny relief under Hurst v. Florida in the postconviction context). We have considered the argumen......
-
Bevel v. State
...that trial counsel did not find the most favorable experts, which is a claim that we have repeatedly rejected. See Brant v. State , 197 So.3d 1051, 1069 (Fla. 2016) ("[W]e have repeatedly stated that trial counsel is not deficient because the defendant is able to find postconviction experts......
-
Knight v. State
...S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). However, Knight waived his penalty phase jury and, thus, is not entitled to relief. Brant v. State , 197 So.3d 1051, 1076 (Fla. 2016) ; Mullens v. State , 197 So.3d 16, 39 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed , No. 16–6773 (Nov. 4, 2016). As such, we reje......
-
Post-conviction relief
...to the defendant pleading not guilty to a crime of which he was clearly guilty in order to render effective counsel. Brant v. State, 197 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 2016) Not requesting alibi defense was proper strategic decision and was reasonable under professional norms, where trial counsel not ab......