Connor v. State

• Decision Date: 15 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. SC04-1283.,SC04-1283.
• Citation: 979 So.2d 852
• Parties: Seburt Nelson CONNOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

979 So.2d 852

Seburt Nelson CONNOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC04-1283.

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 15, 2007.

As Clarified April 10, 2008.

Israel J. Encinosa, Miami, FL, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Margarita I. Cimadevilla, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Seburt Nelson Connor appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and he petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief and deny habeas relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After separating from her husband Lawrence in 1988, Margaret Goodine renewed a previous relationship with Seburt Connor, but she finally terminated the relationship in 1992. Connor then allegedly began to harass Margaret. He was believed to have committed a number of burglaries in which the burglar took bed sheets, towels, and linens from the Goodine home, and he was suspected of having called a neighbor of the family and threatened Margaret and her daughter Karen. One neighbor stated that she once witnessed Connor shoot at the home as he drove by. In September 1992, Lawrence Goodine rejoined Margaret and his daughters Karen and Jessica in the family home. In October, Connor was seen driving slowly through the neighborhood in a vehicle he had purchased that was apparently identical to Margaret's car. Goodine obtained a permanent injunction against Connor.

Karen Goodine arrived home from school on November 19, 1992, and called her mother to tell her that it appeared that someone had been inside the home. Neither Lawrence nor her younger sister Jessica could be located. Margaret told her daughter to call the police. When Margaret arrived home, she told the police that she believed Connor might be involved in the disappearance of her husband and daughter. Her husband's body was discovered in a wooded area near the Fort Lauderdale airport late the next afternoon; he had been dead for approximately twenty-four hours. When officer's arrived to report the discovery of the body, they noticed blood stains at the Goodine home. Soon thereafter, the police visited Connor, who gave consent for the officer's to search his vehicle and agreed to accompany the officer's to the station. The officer's noticed blood stains on the rear seat of the car. Connor's wife consented to a search of the cottage behind the main home but the officer's observed nothing strange.

At the police station, Connor was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and signed a standard waiver form. In response to questioning about blood on his socks and shoes, Connor showed the officer's a small cut on his leg. He had no response when asked how so much blood was produced by the relatively minor cut. He signed a consent form allowing the officer's to take his socks and shoes for testing. DNA test results later showed the blood to be that of Lawrence Goodine. Police obtained signed consent forms from both Connor and his wife permitting a search of his home and cottage. Jessica's body was found in the cottage wrapped in a comforter and wedged between the bed and wall.

The jury convicted Connor of two counts of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and burglary. On the jury's recommendations, the trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder of Lawrence Goodine and a sentence of death for the murder of Jessica. The trial judge found five aggravators for the death of Jessica: (1) previous capital felony; (2) murder committed while engaged in the commission of a kidnapping; (3) murder committed to avoid arrest; (4) the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); and (5) the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP). Four nonstatutory mitigators were found: (1) Connor is a good father, (2) Connor will die in prison if given a life sentence, (3) Connor was not a disciplinary problem while in prison, and (4) Connor suffered from a mental illness at the time of the murder. The first three mitigators were given little weight, but the fourth mitigator was given substantial weight.

On direct appeal, we struck the avoid arrest aggravator but affirmed the convictions and sentences. Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla.2001). In 2003, Connor filed a rule 3.851 postconviction motion raising fifteen grounds concerning the trial or performance of his defense counsel.¹ The trial court held an evidentiary hearing only on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase and ultimately denied relief on all grounds. In this appeal, Connor asserts error in the trial court's refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on numerous claims and in the court's denial of relief. He also raises issues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel that this Court deems a claim for habeas corpus relief.

RULE 3.851 APPEAL

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (affirming the Strickland two-prong analysis for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel). As to the first prong, the defendant must establish that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla.1995). For the second prong, the reviewing court must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for the deficiency, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. "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.

Generally, this Court's standard of review following a denial of a postconviction claim where the trial court has conducted an evidentiary hearing accords deference to the trial court's factual findings. McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 954 n. 4 (Fla.2002). "As long as the trial court's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, `this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.'" Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 1984)). However, the circuit court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 771-72 (Fla.2004).

Failure to Object to Prosecutor's Comment

Connor asserts that reversal of his conviction for a new trial is required because during jury selection the prosecuting attorney made a statement that implied that the defendant had a criminal record that the jurors would not hear about. Because it is undisputed that he had no prior criminal record, Connor argues that this statement was false and so prejudicial that it amounted to a denial of his due process rights. He asserts counsel was ineffective for failing to object and failing to move for a curative instruction. We affirm the denial of relief on this claim because deficient performance and resulting prejudice have not been demonstrated.

It is clear that the statement complained of by the defendant is only part of an explanation given in response to a juror's comment and has been taken out of context. During jury selection, the prosecutor asked the panel members about their prior experiences as jurors. One juror responded by saying that when she previously served as a juror she was troubled by learning, only after they had convicted the defendant of a lesser charge, that the defendant had a long criminal record. The prosecutor immediately explained why jurors are not presented with such evidence during the guilt phase:

Because as soon as people hear that people have a criminal record, their presumption of innocence is not worth a whole lot because then you will start to assume they probably did it because they did it before, and the object is that every person who comes into the courtroom is presumed innocent and, therefore, their prior record is irrelevant to the determination of guilty, and if I was [defense counsel], my concern would be if she doesn't hear about the prior record of the defendant in this case because you won't.²

It is irrelevant to the determination, he may have none, you are just not going to know.

The transcript of the voir dire makes it apparent that the narrowly selected comment was at worst a poorly worded response to an issue wholly initiated by a prospective juror. The prosecutor expressly informed the venire that Connor might have no record. His statements immediately before and after the portion cropped by Connor further informed the jury that a prior record would in any event be irrelevant to the determination of guilt in the instant case. These facts are not analogous to the more egregious cases warranting relief in which prosecutors have intentionally or repeatedly suggested false circumstances to the jury. See Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785, 17 L.Ed.2d 690 (1967); Knight v. State, 316 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We therefore affirm the trial court's...