Farina v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
Decision Date | 26 March 2012 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 6:06-cv-1768-Orl-36GJK |
Parties | ANTHONY JOSEPH FARINA,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This case is before the Court on the Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief (Doc. No. 49) filed by Anthony Joseph Farina. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court, Respondents filed a Response to the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 61). Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Response (Doc. No. 690). For the following reasons, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claims.
The facts adduced at trial, as set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida,1 are as follows:
J. Farina I, 680 So. 2d at 394.2 On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida vacatedPetitioner's death sentence and remanded the case for a new penalty phase. Farina I, 679 So. 2d at 1153. Following the second penalty phase, the Supreme Court noted the following:
Petitioner was charged by indictment with first degree murder (count one), threecounts of attempted first degree murder (counts two, three, and four), armed robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon (count five), burglary of an occupied structure with a battery (count six), four counts of kidnapping (counts seven, eight, nine, and ten), and conspiracy to commit murder and/or armed robbery (count eleven) (Ex. A-16 at 2162-67).3 Prior to trial, Petitioner moved to sever his trial from his co-defendant's trial. Id. at 2245-46. The trial court granted the motion because the State wished to introduce the defendants' separate statements made to police (Ex. A-17 at 2430-31). The trial court found that the State could try the co-defendants together and use only the portions of taped statements made when both defendants were present.4 Id. at 2431. The State elected to try Petitioner and his brother together, and after the jury trial (Ex. A-21 -24), Petitioner was convicted on all counts as charged (Ex. A-18 at 2609-19). The trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal with respect to the kidnapping counts (counts seven, eight, nine, and ten). Id. at 2683.
A penalty proceeding was conducted (Ex. A-25 -27), and the jury recommended by a vote of seven to five that the trial court impose the death penalty upon Petitioner (Ex. A-18 at 2639). Thereafter, the trial judge conducted a hearing pursuant to Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993), after which it found five aggravating factors, no statutory mitigating factors, and several non-statutory mitigating factors. Id. at 2650-55. The trial courtconcluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances and as such, followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Petitioner to death for the first degree murder conviction. Id. The trial court also sentenced Petitioner to six consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the remaining counts.5 Id. at 2674-80.
On direct appeal, Petitioner raised ten claims (Ex. B). The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Petitioner's convictions and the sentences with respect to the noncapital offenses but vacated Petitioner's death sentence because the trial court erroneously excused for cause a prospective juror who was qualified to serve.6 Farina I, 679 So. 2d at 1153. The Court remanded the case for a new penalty proceeding. Id. at 1158. On remand, a joint penalty phase was held before a jury for both Petitioner and Jeffrey (Ex. F-21 - F-28). The jury recommended by a vote of twelve to zero that the trial court impose the death penalty upon Petitioner (Ex. F-3 at 336). The trial judge conducted a Spencer hearing (Ex. F-29) and found five aggravating factors, three statutory mitigating factors, and fifteen nonstatutory mitigating factors (Ex. F-3 at 354-61). The trial court concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and accordingly sentenced Petitioner to death.7 Id. at 360. Petitioner appealed and raised twelve claims for relief(App. G), and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Petitioner's death sentence. Farina
II, 801 So. 2d at 48.
On April 4, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.851 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure alleging thirteen grounds for relief (Ex. L-2 at 252-326). The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on claims three and twelve (Ex. L-1 at 22-179). After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the Rule 3.851 motion (Ex. L-3 at 478-95). Petitioner appealed, and while his appeal was pending, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Ex. P). The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the trial court's denial of Petitioner's Rule 3.851 motion and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Farina (Anthony) v. State, 937 So. 2d 612, 616 (Fla. 2006) ("Farina III").
Petitioner then filed a second Rule 3.851 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging two grounds for relief (Ex. U at 33-52). The trial court summarily denied relief. Id. at 175-78. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the lower court's order denying relief. Farina (Anthony) v. State, 992 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2008) (unpublished) ("Farina IV"). The instant amended federal habeas petition follows.
Because Petitioner filed his petition after April 24, 1996, this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996("AEDPA"). Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 246 (2007); Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). The AEDPA "establishes a more deferential standard of review of state habeas judgments," Fugate v. Head, 261 F.3d 1206, 1215 (11th Cir. 2001), in order to "prevent federal habeas 'retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693 (2002); see also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) ( ).
Pursuant to the AEDPA, habeas relief may not be granted with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication of the claim:
To continue reading
Request your trial