Holland v. State

• Citation: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 94,503 So.2d 1250
• Decision Date: 05 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 68320,68320
• Parties: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 94 Phillip Dylan HOLLAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1250

503 So.2d 1250

12 Fla. L. Weekly 94

Phillip Dylan HOLLAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 68320.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 5, 1987.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1987.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, and Margaret Good, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Richard G. Bartmon and Eddie J. Bell, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

BARKETT, Judge.

We have for review Holland v. State, 484 So.2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which conflicts with Morgan v. State, 475 So.2d 681 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The opinion of the district court below purports to apply the doctrine of harmless error to an erroneous denial of a defendant's right to an evidentiary hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We hold that the doctrine of harmless error is not susceptible to such an application.

On October 29, 1984, Holland filed a motion for postconviction relief in the circuit court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Holland alleged in part that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because during final argument his lawyer conceded his guilt to a lesser included offense and thereby contradicted his entire theory of defense. Rule 3.850 at that time ^* provided in pertinent part:

If the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the motion shall be denied without a hearing. In those instances when such denial is not predicated upon the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the prosecuting attorney of the court, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.

The circuit judge denied Holland's motion for postconviction relief. Despite the express requirement of the rule, the trial court neither denied the motion on the basis of legal insufficiency, nor gave the defendant an evidentiary hearing, nor attached portions of the record which would conclusively demonstrate that petitioner was not entitled to relief. The judge simply stated that he had "reviewed the transcript of the Defendant's trial" and had determined that "the transcript of the closing argument when viewed in its totality reveals a vigorous argument that the Defendant was not guilty."

The district court, without any portions of the record to support the trial court's assertions and apparently conceding the defendant's entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, affirmed the trial court's order denying all relief:

Mr. Holland's motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was denied without an evidentiary hearing. Holland appeals, contending that he was entitled to a hearing under authority of Morgan v. State, 475 So.2d 681 (Fla.1985). Facially, Holland is correct. However our review leaves us convinced that the error was harmless according to applicable criteria and that no purpose would be served by remanding for a hearing. Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.1981) and Recinos v. State, 420 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1984).

484 So.2d at 596. The apparent application of the harmless error doctrine to a denial of an evidentiary hearing in this case compels us to reiterate the purposes and the appropriate application of the doctrine.

Implicit in the harmless error test is the concession that a right under either the federal and/or state constitutions or under state or federal rules or statutes has been violated. The determination of whether that error was prejudicial or harmless must begin by assessing, under specifically defined guidelines, the impact of the error on the result. Indeed, the underlying support for the harmless error rule is inextricably bound to its limitations. That is, courts have been persuaded to apply it because it is limited to those cases where, after the required scrutiny, the reviewing court can say that beyond a reasonable doubt the result would have been the same absent the error. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3105, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Its acceptance is the result of compromising the competing principles described by Professor Mause:

In balancing the interests at stake in formulating and applying a harmless error rule two aspects should be emphasized. Since the rule does not apply until it is determined that there is error in the record, the danger of an overly broad harmless error rule is that verdicts based on error may be affirmed. Depending on the nature of the error, this will lead both to an unjust result in the case to which the rule is applied, and to a whittling away of the impact of the rule of law which defines the error. On the other hand, an overly narrow harmless error rule will lead to a waste of judicial resources through the needless reversal and retrial of cases which should have been affirmed.

In applying the harmless error rule to criminal convictions ... the balance of interests therefore involves two dangers: affirming the conviction of an innocent defendant, or more precisely a defendant who would not have been convicted in the absence of the error; and causing the state the needless expense of retrying an appellant's case only to reach the same result reached in the first trial. To state the interests to be balanced is to emphasize that uncertainty should almost always be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant.

Mause, Harmless Constitutional Error: The Implications of Chapman v. California, 53 Minn.L.Rev. 519, 519-20 (1969) (emphasis supplied).

The doctrine was originally developed for and generally occurs within a trial context. The analysis demands that all information necessary to weigh the impact of the error upon the result is present before the reviewing court. As former Chief Justice Burger noted in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 490, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978):

In the normal case where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily identifiable. Accordingly, the reviewing court can undertake with some confidence its relatively narrow task of assessing the likelihood that the error materially affected the deliberations of the jury.

In Holloway, the trial judge forced a defense lawyer to represent three codefendants despite the lawyer's pleas of conflict. Justice Burger's opinion is helpful in considering how the absence of information relates to a harmless error analysis:

It may be possible in some cases to identify from the record the prejudice resulting from an attorney's failure to undertake certain trial tasks, but even with a record of the sentencing hearing available it would be difficult to judge intelligently the impact of a conflict on the attorney's representation of a client. And to assess the impact of a conflict of interests on the attorney's options, tactics, and decisions in plea negotiations would be virtually impossible. Thus, an inquiry into a claim of harmless error here would require, unlike most cases, unguided speculation.

435 U.S. at 490-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1181-82.

In a case such as...