Guzman v. Sec'y
Decision Date | 17 March 2010 |
Docket Number | Case No. 6:06-cv-1271-Orl-35GJK. |
Citation | 698 F.Supp.2d 1317 |
Parties | James GUZMAN, Petitioner,v.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Eric Pinkard, Robbins Equitas, PA, St. Petersburg, FL, Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Tampa, FL, for Petitioner.
Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Office of the Attorney General*, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondents.
This case is before the Court on the Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief and accompanying memorandum of law (Doc. No. 1) filed by James Guzman. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court, Respondents filed a Response (Doc. No. 22) to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Response (Doc. No. 36). As discussed hereinafter, the habeas petition is granted in part and denied in part.
I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Petitioner was arrested for the murder of David Colvin on December 13, 1991. Petitioner's second trial began on December 2, 1996, and, in this trial, Petitioner waived his right to a jury in both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial.1 The trial court convicted Petitioner of first-degree murder and armed robbery, and it imposed a death sentence. In its sentencing order, the trial court found the following five aggravating circumstances: (1) Petitioner was previously convicted of a felony involving the use of violence; (2) the murder was committed in the course of a robbery; (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding arrest; (4) the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner; and (5) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The trial court found no statutory mitigating circumstances, and, as nonstatutory mitigation, the trial court found that Petitioner's alcohol and drug dependency was established but that it was entitled to little weight. Guzman v. State, 721 So.2d 1155, 1157-58 (Fla.1998).
While the murder was indisputably heinous,2 the facts centrally at issue here are those concerning the presentation of evidence of Petitioner's guilt as the perpetrator of the murder. In this regard, the facts adduced at trial, as set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida, are as follows:
Here Petitioner raises meritorious Giglio3 and Brady4 claims involving the false testimony of Martha Cronin and the false testimony of Detective Allison Sylvester and the withholding of evidence from the Defense concerning same. The following are the facts significant to the consideration of this claim on this Petition.
Ms. Cronin testified before the grand jury against Petitioner on January 11, 1992. (Exhibit AA-21 at 1743.) At the trial, Detective Sylvester denied that she, law enforcement, or the State Attorney's office had offered Petitioner any deals in exchange for her testimony. (Exhibit AA-20 at 1559-60.) Ms. Cronin also denied ever receiving a deal from law enforcement, although she acknowledged being placed in a hotel room for protection. Id. at 1667-68.
At the Rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing, however, after defense investigation had revealed a payment had been made to Ms. Cronin, Detective Sylvester conceded that, on January 3, 1992, just eight days before Ms. Cronin testified before the grand jury she delivered a money order to the Volusia County Jail in the sum of $500 made payable to Ms. Cronin. (Exhibit G-2 at 166.) The money was placed in Ms. Cronin's prison account where she was incarcerated and was provided to her because she had provided information leading to the arrest of Petitioner. Id. at 167-70, 183. Detective Sylvester denied that Ms. Cronin was paid for her testimony. Id. at 180. Detective Sylvester could not recall when the reward money had first been offered to Ms. Cronin. Id. at 168. However, the reward was originally offered on August 16, 1991, for information “about a man stabbed to death in his motel room.” Id. at 185. The reward offer was published in the Daytona Beach News-Journal and the Orlando Sentinel. Id. at 199-200. Detective Sylvester recalled that Ms. Cronin's mother contacted her on January 2, 1992, “asking if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Padgett
...witness should have been disclosed to the defense. Petitioner attempts to draw a parallel between this case and Guzman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (M.D. Fla.), aff'd, Guzman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 661 F.3d 602 (11th Cir. 2011). In Guzman, a witness, who was an admitted......
-
Guzman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...Court granted Guzman a new trial based upon his Brady and Giglio claims and denied relief on his remaining claims. 12 See Guzman, 698 F.Supp.2d at 1333–35. In granting habeas relief, the District Court determined that the Florida Supreme Court had correctly identified Brady and Giglio as pr......
-
Guzman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs.
...Court granted Guzman a new trial based upon his Brady and Giglio claims and denied relief on his remaining claims. 12 See Guzman, 698 F.Supp.2d at 1333–35. In granting habeas relief, the District Court determined that the Florida Supreme Court had correctly identified Brady and Giglio as pr......
- Jeanty v. City of Miami, Case No. 10–20513–CV.