Huggins v. State
Decision Date | 09 October 2014 |
Docket Number | SC12–2161.,Nos. SC11–219,s. SC11–219 |
Citation | 161 So.3d 335 |
Parties | John Steven HUGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. John Steven Huggins, Petitioner, v. Michael D. Crews, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, and David Robert Gemmer, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Tampa, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lisa–Marie Krause Lerner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
John Steven Huggins appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the following reasons, we affirm the denial of Huggins' motion and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Huggins was convicted of the June 1997 murder of Carla Larson and sentenced to death. After discovering that the State committed a Brady1 violation, the trial court ordered a new trial. At Huggins' second trial, he was again convicted of murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Huggins filed the instant postconviction motion on June 5, 2006. Subsequently, the postconviction court found Huggins was incompetent to proceed and he was committed to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) for treatment. The court monitored Huggins' progress until ultimately determining that Huggins was competent to proceed with his postconviction proceedings. Huggins moved through counsel for an additional competency determination, but refused to cooperate. The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing without first determining Huggins' competency. After the evidentiary hearing, the court ordered Huggins to meet with experts, then ruled that Huggins was competent and denied Huggins' postconviction motion. Huggins now appeals that denial and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We find that the postconviction court did not err and that Huggins has not established that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
Huggins was first convicted of Larson's murder on February 3, 1998. After finding that the State had committed a Brady violation, the trial court ordered a new trial. State v. Huggins, 788 So.2d 238, 244 (Fla.2001). The facts presented in Huggins' second direct appeal were as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Whitton v. State
-
Kocaker v. State
...will not disturb the court's conclusion "unless no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." Huggins v. State , 161 So. 3d 335, 345 (Fla. 2014) (quoting Scott v. State , 717 So. 2d 908, 911 (Fla. 1998) ). Consistent with this highly deferential standard of review, w......
-
Andres v. State
... ... and that decision "does not constitute an abuse of ... discretion unless no reasonable person would take the view ... adopted by the trial court") (quoting McCray v ... State, 71 So.3d 848, 862 (Fla. 2011)) (additional ... quotation omitted). See also Huggins v. State, 161 ... So.3d 335, 344 (Fla. 2014) ("In arriving at a conclusion ... as to the defendant's competency, the court should ... consider several factors, including "the defendant's ... appreciation of the charges and the range and nature of ... possible ... ...
-
Nolasco v. State
...court's determination of competency supported by competent, substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal." Huggins v. State, 161 So. 3d 335, 344 (Fla. 2014). Moreover, when (as here) expert testimony regarding a defendant's competency is conflicting, "this Court has traditionally af......