Huff v. State

• Decision Date: 25 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. SC91913.,SC91913.
• Parties: James Roger HUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

762 So.2d 476

James Roger HUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC91913.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 25, 2000.

Rehearing Denied July 25, 2000.

Frederick W. Vollrath, Tampa, Florida, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Judy Taylor Rush, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

James Roger Huff, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the trial court's order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the trial court's denial of postconviction relief.

Huff was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. In Huff v. State, 437 So.2d 1087 (Fla.1983), this Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. On retrial, Huff was again convicted and sentenced to death. In Huff v. State, 495 So.2d 145 (Fla.1986), this Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. In 1988, Huff filed his first rule 3.850 motion, which was subsequently stricken by the trial court. In Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1990), this Court held that the circuit court should have considered Huffs rule 3.850 motion. On remand, the circuit court considered Huffs motion but denied relief without a hearing. In doing so, the circuit court entered a proposed order submitted by the State without affording Huff the opportunity to raise objections or submit an alternative order. Thus, in Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993), this Court again remanded and ordered the circuit court to hold a hearing for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing was required and to hear legal argument relating to the rule 3.850 motion. Such hearings have subsequently become known as Huff hearings. The proceedings that followed our 1993 remand are the subject of the instant appeal.

On November 8, 1996, Huff filed an amended rule 3.850 motion. On December 23, 1996, the circuit court held a Huff hearing in order to determine whether any of the claims raised in the motion required an evidentiary hearing. Of the forty-two claims raised by Huff, the circuit court ruled that only one subclaim required an evidentiary hearing.¹ The remaining claims were found to be procedurally barred, legally insufficient, or refuted by the record.² Shortly after the Huff hearing, the Office of the Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) moved to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. The circuit court granted CCR's motion to withdraw and, in February of 1997, appointed attorney William K. Eble, Sr., to represent Huff at the evidentiary hearing. On August 8, 1997, the circuit court held the evidentiary hearing. In October 1997, the circuit court entered its order denying relief. Huff now appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief.

Huff raises three issues in this appeal. Huff claims that: (1) the trial court erred in finding that Huff's counsel did not render ineffective assistance in connection with an alleged plea offer; (2) the trial court erred in finding that Huff was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the other issues raised in his rule 3.850 motion; and (3) the trial court erred by refusing to allow Huff's newly appointed counsel to file an amended rule 3.850 motion.

In his first claim, Huff contends that the trial court erred in finding that Huff's counsel did not render ineffective assistance in connection with an alleged plea offer. The focus of the evidentiary hearing below was whether the State conveyed a plea offer to Huff or his attorneys prior to the 1984 retrial. Because this evidentiary hearing took place some thirteen years after the retrial, many of the witnesses had trouble remembering the events preceding the 1984 trial. Prosecutor James Martin Brown testified that he did not offer Huff a plea to second-degree murder. Defense attorney Mark J. Hill testified that to the best of his recollection, he did not receive an offer from the State. However, assistant state attorney Jeffery Mark Pfister testified that he remembered that there was an offer made by the State. Finally, defense attorney Horace Danforth Robuck, Jr., testified that if Huff had told him that he wanted to propose a plea offer to the State, then he would have communicated such an offer to the State.

During the evidentiary hearing, Huff introduced two documents relating to potential plea offers. The first document, dated March 19, 1984, was signed by Huff and stated that Huff "rejects the plea offer communicated to me by my attorneys" for two counts of second-degree murder with a probable sentence of eight years. The second document was neither dated nor signed and stated that Huff agreed to plea to two counts of second-degree murder and to serve consecutive life sentences. Huff's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is twofold: (1) he alleges that his attorneys failed to tell him about a plea offer from the State and that his attorneys failed to discuss whether it was advisable to accept this offer, and (2) he asserts that his attorneys failed to convey to the State a plea offer made by him. Huff's theory is that an offer was made by the State in March of 1984, as evidenced by the March 19, 1984, document, but that he rejected this offer based on his attorneys' representations that (a) there would be a crime scene expert to establish that the crime scene was tainted, and (b) one of the State's key witnesses, Sheriff Johnson, would be impeached. Huff claims that these representations by counsel were false and therefore counsel was ineffective. Huff also claims that as the trial got closer, it became apparent to him that there would be no crime scene expert, and therefore he changed his mind and wanted to enter a plea, even if it meant life sentences. Huff claims that the second document supports this claim. Huff alleges that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to convey this offer to the State. When defense attorney Hill was asked about the March 19, 1984, document, he stated that he prepared the document to "cover his tail," even though the State had not extended an offer.

In order to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that but for the deficiency, the outcome would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028 (Fla.1999), this Court established the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel claims:

Ineffectiveness is not a question of "basic, primary, or historical fact." Rather, like the question whether multiple representation in a particular case gave rise to a conflict of interest, it is a mixed question of law and fact. Although state court findings of fact made in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim are subject to the deference requirement ... both the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact.

[Strickland, 466 U.S.] at 698 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). Thus, under Strickland, both the performance and prejudice prongs are mixed question of law and fact, with deference to be given only to the lower court's factual findings.

Id. at 1033. Whether or not an offer was ever made by the State is a question of fact. In its order denying relief, the circuit court concluded that the evidence did not establish that there was a plea offer extended from the State to counsel for the defense. Our review of the record reveals competent, substantial evidence to supports this factual finding. See id. at 1031. ("The State takes the position, and we agree, that the `competent substantial evidence' standard announced in Grossman[ v. State, 708 So.2d 249 (Fla.1997),] applies to the trial court's factual findings."). Thus, we find no merit to Huff's first claim that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to tell him about a plea offer from the State. As to his second claim (whether counsel conveyed Huff's offer to the State), the circuit court further concluded that the evidence did not support Huff's allegation that counsel for the defense failed to extend a plea offer from Huff to the State, or that the State would have been interested in such an agreement. Again, we find that competent, substantial evidence supports this factual finding. Therefore, we conclude that there is also no merit to Huff's assertion that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to convey his alleged plea offer to the State.

In his second claim, Huff asserts that the trial court erred in finding that Huff was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the other issues raised in his rule 3.850 motion. A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief. See Lemon v. State, 498 So.2d 923, 923 (Fla.1986).

The circuit court in this case conducted a lengthy hearing at which both sides were permitted to present argument regarding the forty-two claims raised in Huff's motion. The circuit court in this case granted an evidentiary hearing for one subclaim. Of the claims that were summarily denied, the court found that each of them was either procedurally barred, legally insufficient, or refuted by the record. The court thoroughly addressed each claim and explained the reasons for the denial in its order. For the claims that were found to be procedurally barred, the court concluded that the claims either could have been raised on direct appeal or were raised on direct appeal and found to be without merit. We agree with the circuit court's conclusion that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted for these...