Hayward v. State

• Decision Date: 25 June 2015
• Docket Number: Nos. SC12–1386,SC13–1787.,s. SC12–1386
• Parties: Steven Douglas HAYWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Steven Douglas Hayward, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

183 So.3d 286

Steven Douglas HAYWARD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Steven Douglas Hayward, Petitioner,
v.
Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent.

Nos. SC12–1386
SC13–1787.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 25, 2015.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 2015.

183 So.3d 293

Neal Andre Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Paul Edward Kalil, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, and Elizabeth Tandiwe Stewart, Staff Attorney, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Steven Douglas Hayward appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death after an evidentiary hearing on certain issues raised in the motion. He also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS

Hayward's convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, armed burglary of a conveyance, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and his death sentence, were affirmed on direct appeal in Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17 (Fla.2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1097, 130 S.Ct. 2385, 176 L.Ed.2d 777 (2010). The facts of the case were set forth in this Court's direct appeal decision in detail. Hayward shot and robbed Daniel Destefano in St. Lucie County in the early morning hours of February 1, 2005. Trial was held in 2007. Destefano was a newspaper delivery person in Fort Pierce and was filling a newspaper stand at a convenience store around 4 a.m. when he was accosted by Hayward. A witness heard Destefano shouting "I don't have no more," and heard two gunshots followed by a louder gunshot. Id. at 24.

Hayward shot Destefano twice with a .22 caliber pistol and Destefano, who had a concealed weapons permit for his .357 caliber revolver, shot Hayward once in the hand. The witness saw a black man searching Destefano's car and then going under a street light where he appeared to examine his hand. The man was wearing

183 So.3d 294

some sort of head covering. Id. The witness saw Destefano limp away in an easterly direction and saw the black male leave the area in a westerly direction by way of a short-cut around the witness's nearby rooming house. Id. Hayward's blood was later found at the crime scene on personal items around Destefano's car, on the outside wall of the witness's rooming house, and on a fence post near the witness's rooming house. Id. at 26. Not long after he was shot, Destefano was found about a block away. When paramedics and police responded, an officer asked him, "What happened?" to which Destefano responded that a black male with a stocking cap over his face had shot him. Soon thereafter Destefano died. Id. at 24.

Hayward's girlfriend testified that Hayward came to their rooming house near the convenience store just before dawn on the day of the shooting with an injury to his hand. Two days after the shooting, police responded to the rooming house after receiving a report that someone there had a possible gunshot wound to his hand and had asked a resident to sew it up. Id. at 24–25. The police were allowed by other residents to enter and found Hayward coming out of a communal bathroom. They asked to see his wound, which was wrapped, and he showed it to them, claiming it was a knife wound inflicted by his girlfriend. Hayward consented to go outside and speak with officers. Hayward was subsequently asked to come to the police station to discuss the injury to his hand, to which he agreed, and was handcuffed for the ride in the back seat of the police car. The officer told Hayward he was not under arrest, and that it was "policy" to handcuff anyone being transported in the police car. Hayward suddenly stated that he "wasn't going to lie" and that he had been robbed and shot several days earlier. Hayward's girlfriend also informed the officers that she had stabbed Hayward in the hand, but that he had reported to her that he had been shot when two black men were robbing him. She said he was shot in the same hand where she had earlier stabbed him. Id. at 25.

Once at the police station, Hayward was uncuffed but secured by an ankle bracelet, and was advised of his Miranda rights.¹ During the interview, he told police he had not been stabbed in the hand, but had been shot in the robbery attempt by two men, one black and one Mexican, when he attempted to take their gun away. He later changed the story to say he was not robbed, but had witnessed Destefano being robbed and shot by a lone man, and that when he, Hayward, attempted to pick up a gun at the scene, he was accidentally shot. He also admitted going through Destefano's car looking for anything of value. Id. at 25. Several months later, the murder weapon, a .22 caliber revolver, was found behind a wall board in the rooming house where Hayward's girlfriend lived. Hayward's blood was found inside the gun's firing chamber. Id. at 26.

At the penalty phase, the State presented evidence of Hayward's prior conviction for second-degree murder and armed robbery. Hayward presented mitigation through testimony from four family members and an expert. Id. at 27. The jury returned a verdict recommending death by a vote of eight to four, and the trial court followed the recommendation, finding two aggravators: (1) prior violent felony convictions (extremely great weight); and (2) murder during the course of a robbery merged with pecuniary gain (great weight).

183 So.3d 295

No statutory mitigators were offered or found, but the trial court found the following nonstatutory mitigation: (1) Hayward could have received a life sentence; (2) he grew up without a father; (3) he was loved by his family; (4) he had academic problems; (5) he obtained a GED in prison; (6) he would make a good adjustment to prison; (7) he had financial stress at the time of the crime; and (8) he had some capacity for rehabilitation. Each mitigating factor was given "little weight" except for the factor that Hayward could have gotten a life sentence, which was given "very little weight," and the factor that he grew up without a father, which was given "some weight." Id.

On direct appeal, Hayward raised a number of claims of error pertaining to his conviction and his sentence, which were found to be without merit or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.² We affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding that Destefano's statements to the first responders describing his attacker qualified as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and not as a dying declaration.Id. at 31. However, we also concluded that the statements were a Confrontation Clause violation under the authority of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), although we found the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.³

As to the police encounter with Hayward in the rooming house, we found that the encounter was consensual and that the police had probable cause to detain Hayward for questioning. As to the claim that Hayward was illegally detained when handcuffed as a matter of policy for the ride to the police station, we explained:

The State concedes that handcuffs are restraining devices but contends that Hayward was not detained because the use of handcuffs during transport was a routine safety measure followed by the police. Although Hayward was in the process of being handcuffed pursuant to police policy at the time of his statement, the totality of the circumstances, including the purpose of the officer's

183 So.3d 296

conduct and the spontaneous nature of Hayward's statement, demonstrate that his statement was not the result of any alleged illegal detention.

Hayward, 24 So.3d at 36. This Court found that once at the police station, Hayward was detained, but gave his statements voluntarily after waiving his Miranda rights. Id. at 36–37.

As to Hayward's claim of fundamental error in prosecutorial comments comparing his life choices with those made by the victim, we found that the argument was error but not fundamental. Id. at 42. Hayward's other claims on direct appeal were found to be without merit.

Postconviction Proceedings

On April 21, 2011, Hayward filed his initial motion for postconviction relief, which he subsequently amended on August 16, 2011.⁴ After a case management hearing held on December 19, 2011, the trial court ordered an evidentiary hearing on certain of the claims. The evidentiary hearing was held on February 27, 2012, through March 1, 2012, and March 28, 2012. At the hearing, Hayward presented the testimony of trial counsel Robert Udell and Jerome Stone, Jr.; family members Barbara Johnson (mother), Debra Fleury (sister), Derrick Green (brother), and Terrance...