Derrick v. State

• Decision Date: 07 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. SC05-1559.,No. SC06-1380.,SC05-1559.,SC06-1380.
• Citation: 983 So.2d 443
• Parties: Samuel Jason DERRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Samuel Jason Derrick, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNeil, etc., Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

983 So.2d 443

Samuel Jason DERRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Samuel Jason Derrick, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNeil, etc., Respondent.

No. SC05-1559.

No. SC06-1380.

Supreme Court of Florida.

February 7, 2008.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 29, 2008.

Harry P. Brody and Jeffrey M. Hazen of Brody and Hazen, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Katherine V. Blanco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Jason Derrick was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1987 killing of Rama Sharma. In this postconviction proceeding, he appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence filed 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. For all the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's denial of postconviction relief and deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The pertinent facts of this case were set forth in this Court's opinion on direct appeal as follows:

On June 25, 1987, at 6:30 a.m., Harry Lee found the body of Rama Sharma in a path in the woods near Sharma's Moon Lake General Store in Pasco County. Blood trailed from the body to a blood puddle twenty feet away. The police found a piece of a tee shirt near the body as well as two sets of tennis shoe prints, one set belonging to Harry Lee. The medical examiner found that Sharma had died from over thirty-one stab wounds and that he had died approximately ten to fifteen minutes after the last wound was inflicted. Derrick was implicated in the murder by his friend, David Lowry. At trial Lowry testified that he and his wife visited Derrick on June 24 at Derrick's mother's house and that Derrick had knives out. Lowry drove Derrick to another friend's house, at which time Lowry noticed that Derrick had a knife in the back of his pants. At the time, Derrick was wearing a tee shirt, jeans, and tennis shoes. The friend's house was about two blocks from Sharma's store. At approximately 1:30 a.m. on June 25, Derrick showed up at Lowry's house in a sweaty condition and without a shirt. When Lowry drove Derrick home, Derrick told him that he had robbed the Moon Lake General Store. Derrick gave Lowry twenty dollars for gas. Later that day, after Lowry heard that Sharma had been killed, he asked Derrick whether he had killed him. Derrick admitted killing Sharma, stating that he had stabbed him thirteen times because Sharma kept screaming. Lowry testified that Derrick "kind of laughed and said it was easy." Lowry also noted that on June 25 Derrick had a new car that was worth approximately $200-$300. On June 29, Lowry notified the sheriff's department about Derrick's involvement in the murder.

After being arrested and advised of his rights, Derrick denied any knowledge of the murder to Detective Vaughn. Vaughn then advised Derrick that they had a witness, David Lowry. After denying that Lowry had told them anything, Derrick demanded, "I'd like to have him in front of me. Let him tell me." Vaughn then brought Lowry and Derrick into the same room and Derrick confessed to the murder. He stated that he went to Sharma's store to rob it and jumped Sharma as he left the store. Sharma turned to run back to the store. When Derrick grabbed him, Sharma turned around and saw that it was Derrick. Sharma started screaming and Derrick stabbed him "to shut him up." Derrick then took approximately $360 from Sharma's pocket. Derrick also admitted that he tore off a piece of his tee shirt at the scene because it had blood on it. After the murder, Derrick threw the knife into the woods and ran to Lowry's house. Derrick also stated that he lost the money and that he threw his shoes and some clothing into a pond. The police took Derrick to the Moon Lake General Store, and he showed them where he had attacked and murdered Sharma. The police never located the clothing, shoes, or knife.

Derrick v. State, 581 So.2d 31, 33 (Fla. 1991). The jury found Derrick guilty of first-degree murder. During the penalty phase, Derrick presented witnesses who testified that he was a good husband, father, and human being and that he had suffered physical and sexual abuse as a child. The jury recommended death by an eight-to-four vote. In following the jury's recommendation and sentencing Derrick to death, the judge found four aggravators¹ but only one statutory mitigating circumstance—the defendant was twenty years old at the time of the murder. The judge did not find any nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. See id. at 34.

On direct appeal, Derrick raised nine issues.² This Court affirmed the conviction for first-degree murder. However, the Court reversed Derrick's death sentence based on its conclusion that the testimony offered by the State during the penalty phase from Randall James, a jailhouse informant, was impermissible and prejudicial because it suggested Derrick would kill again. The Court affirmed on all other guilt-phase issues and discussed one other penalty-phase issue,³ but declined to address any other issues concerning the penalty phase. See id. at 36-37.

At the second sentencing hearing, Derrick presented several witnesses who testified as to his positive traits and helpful nature. Unlike the first penalty phase, there was no evidence presented of Derrick's terrible childhood or the circumstances of his sexual abuse. The jury recommended the death penalty by a seven-to-five vote. The trial judge again found substantial aggravation, specifically that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery, the murder was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest, and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Unlike the first sentencing, the trial court did not find the CCP aggravator applicable. As to mitigation, the trial court once again found the statutory mitigator of age and, in addition, found the nonstatutory mitigating circumstance of potential for rehabilitation as follows:

[T]he defendant has met the standard of "reasonable certainty" in establishing that the defendant has some potential for rehabilitation. Although the defendant has only recently been given an opportunity to assist other inmates in their efforts to become literate, the defendant's past assistance of his learning handicapped brother combined with the testimony of Nanci Denamen from the Scwettman Adult Education Center, tends to indicate that the defendant actually is well motivated in this regard and is not simply taking advantage of an opportunity to make himself look somewhat better to the sentencing jury and the Court.

However, finding that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, the trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Derrick to death.

On his direct appeal after resentencing, Derrick raised seven claims all related to the penalty phase.⁴ This Court, finding that each issue raised was without merit, affirmed the sentence of death. The postconviction process then began with the initial filing of a "shell" rule 3.850 motion in 1997, Derrick's first amended motion for postconviction relief in 1998, and his second amended motion in December 2001. Six claims were raised and the trial court summarily denied all of the claims except for counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence at the second penalty-phase proceeding, Derrick's subclaim that counsel failed to present evidence of other suspects, and Derrick's cumulative error claim.⁵ Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued a detailed order denying relief and Derrick now appeals.

ANALYSIS

A. MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), this Court has held that for ineffective assistance of counsel claims to be successful, two requirements must be satisfied: first, the defendant must establish that counsel's performance was deficient; second, the defendant must establish that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. See Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 320 (Fla. 2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052); Mendoza v. State, 964 So.2d 121, 127 (Fla.2007); Philmore v. State, 937 So.2d 578, 583 (Fla.2006).

To establish the deficiency prong under Strickland, the defendant must prove that counsel's performance was unreasonable under "prevailing professional norms." Morris v. State, 931 So.2d 821, 828 (Fla.2006) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052). To establish the prejudice prong under Strickland, the defendant must prove that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052).

Because both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact, this Court employs a mixed standard of review, deferring to the circuit court's factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing the circuit court's legal conclusions de novo. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 771-72 (Fla.2004).

1. SUMMARY DENIAL OF GUILTPHASE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS

We begin with the issue of whether the trial court erred in summarily denying Derrick's ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising from the guilt phase. Generally, a defendant in a rule 3.850 motion filed in a capital case is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless: "(1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the [defendant] is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion...