Brown v. State, No. SC01-1275
Citation | 846 So.2d 1114 |
Decision Date | 24 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. SC01-2713., No. SC01-1275 |
Parties | Paul Anthony BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Paul Anthony Brown, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., etc., Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
John J. Bonaccorsy, Daytona Beach, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Judy Taylor Rush, Kenneth S. Nunnelley, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
Paul Anthony Brown, an inmate under sentence of death, appeals an order of the circuit court denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9) Fla. Const. These cases have been consolidated. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of Brown's postconviction motion and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Brown was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death based on the following facts:
Ten or fifteen minutes later, the two left the victim's apartment in Hensley's truck, stopped at their motel room to collect their belongings, and drove to Tennessee. There, Brown burned his bloody pants in a stove and McGuire departed on foot a day or two later. Brown was arrested on November 8 at a farmhouse in Tennessee by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) on unrelated charges.
Brown v. State, 721 So.2d 274, 275-76 (Fla. 1998) (footnotes omitted).
Brown was charged with first-degree murder and first-degree felony murder, and was convicted by a jury. Id. at 276. Following the penalty phase proceeding, the jury voted twelve to zero to recommend the death penalty. Id. at 277. On a finding of four aggravating circumstances1 and two nonstatutory mitigating circumstances,2 the trial court accepted the jury's unanimous recommendation and sentenced Brown to death. Id. We affirmed Brown's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Id. at 275.
Brown filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 on November 3, 2000. He filed an amended 3.850 motion on February 12, 2001, and a second amended motion on April 26, 2001, raising twenty-one claims.3 The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing, which was held on April 26-27, 2001. Subsequent to the hearing, the trial court entered a comprehensive order denying Brown all relief. Brown appeals that denial to this Court and also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Brown raises three claims in his 3.850 appeal: (1) that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and (3) that the cumulative effect of the errors resulted in an unfair proceeding.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Brown raises numerous subclaims, in which he presents conduct that he believes represents ineffective assistance of counsel. We have rearranged the order of the subclaims presented by Brown, and will discuss them in the following order: (1) insufficient impeachment, (2) failure to object, (3) opening the door to damaging testimony by FBI agent Robert Childs, and (4) improper argument.
The framework for analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In Strickland, the Supreme Court said:
First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.
Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To establish prejudice, Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present a mixed question of law and fact subject to plenary review based on the Strickland test. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1033 (Fla.1999)
. Therefore, this Court must engage in an independent review of the trial court's legal conclusions, while giving deference to the trial court's factual findings. See id.4
Insufficient Impeachment
Brown argues that trial counsel was deficient in his cross-examination of Scott McGuire, and he raises several instances of alleged ineffective performance in that regard.5 However, these instances satisfy neither the requirement of deficient performance nor the requirement of prejudice under Strickland.
Noting that Brown's own detailed oral and written confessions convicted Brown, the trial court found that the matters raised as examples of insufficient impeachment were relatively insignificant matters. Furthermore, the judge ruled that if counsel's performance was indeed deficient, there was not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been affected.
We conclude that collateral counsel's argument that counsel should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Geralds v. Inch
......Geralds v . State , 601 So. 2d 1157, 1158-59 (Fla. 1992) (hereinafter Geralds I ). The jury found Geralds guilty of ...In Brown v . State , 846 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2003), we rejected an argument that trial counsel should have ......
-
Solomon v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...context, Defendant must show that the improper comments undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. SeeBrown v. State, 846 So. 2d 1114, 1122 (Fla. 2003). Counsel is not deficient for failing to make a meritless objection. Lugo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1, 21 (Fla. 2008). Additionally, jurors......
-
Davis v. State, SC02-1424.
...the alleged omission, identifying "a specific evidentiary matter to which the failure to depose witnesses would relate." Brown v. State, 846 So.2d 1114, 1124 (Fla.2003) (quoting Magill v. State, 457 So.2d 1367, 1370 (Fla.1984)). Davis has not established that any of the individuals he claim......
-
Dufour v. State
...Under these circumstances, Dufour cannot now second-guess a strategic decision employed by defense counsel. See Brown v. State, 846 So.2d 1114, 1125 (Fla.2003) (emphasizing that the Court will not second-guess counsel's strategic decisions on collateral Moreover, Dufour has failed to demons......
-
Witness questioning and answering
...counsel having a deficiency performance. Counsel’s strategic decisions will not be second-guessed on collateral attack. Brown v. State , 846 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2003). Happ v. State “This Court has long held that a question is not necessarily leading simply because it calls for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’......