Jackson v. Dugger, s. 75846

• Decision Date: 09 September 1993
• Docket Number: 78909,Nos. 75846,s. 75846
• Citation: 633 So.2d 1051
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Weekly S485 Etheria Verdell JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, etc., Respondent. Etheria Verdell JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1051

633 So.2d 1051

18 Fla. L. Weekly S485

Etheria Verdell JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, etc., Respondent.

Etheria Verdell JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 75846, 78909.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 9, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1994.

Michael J. Minerva, Interim Capital Collateral Representative, and Martin J. McClain, Chief Asst. CCR, Ken Driggs, and Deborah K. Nimmons, Asst. CCR's, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for petitioner/appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent/appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Etheria Verdell Jackson, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Jackson has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus directly with this Court. We affirm the trial court's denial of Jackson's rule 3.850 motion and deny his motion for writ of habeas corpus. ¹

Etheria Jackson was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Jacksonville furniture store owner Linton Moody and sentenced to death. The facts of the murder are set out in Jackson v. State, 530 So.2d 269 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S.Ct. 882, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989), in which we affirmed Jackson's conviction and sentence of death. Pertinent to these proceedings are the following facts taken from that opinion:

On December 3, 1985, Linton came to [Linda Riley's] home to collect the monthly payment [on a washing machine purchased from Moody's retail furniture business.] On this particular occasion, Riley's two children and the appellant were also present. Riley stated that after Linton cashed [her government] check, he gave her a receipt. At this point, the appellant, Jackson, grabbed Moody and put a knife to his neck. Riley testified that appellant then forced Moody to the floor and directed her to remove his wallet and keys. As the sixty-four-year-old Moody begged for mercy, he was bound, gagged, and then choked with a belt until he was unconscious. After Moody regained consciousness, Jackson beat him in the face with a cast on his forearm and then straddled his body and repeatedly stabbed him in the chest. Jackson and Linda Riley then disposed of the body by rolling it up in a carpet and stuffing it in the back of the victim's car. The car was driven by Jackson to another location and abandoned, where it was later discovered by police.

Id. at 270.

Jackson's theory of defense was that his girlfriend, Linda Riley, committed this murder. Jackson made an initial statement to arresting officers that they had him "like a hawk," and his statements varied from total denial of being at the premises when the murder occurred to admitting that he helped Riley dispose of the body. The jury found Jackson guilty as charged. In the penalty phase, the jury was instructed on the following five aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed while Jackson was under sentence of imprisonment; (2) Jackson was previously convicted of a crime of violence; (3) the crime was committed during the course of a robbery or for pecuniary gain; (4) the crime was especially wicked, evil, atrocious, or cruel; (5) the crime was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner. At the jury instruction conference, Jackson's defense counsel objected to the heinous, atrocious, or cruel instruction on the ground it was vague but did not submit a suggested instruction to the court.

The jury returned a recommendation of death by a vote of seven to five. In imposing the death penalty, the trial judge found that all five aggravating factors were present and that no mitigating factors existed.

On direct appeal, this Court held that the trial court improperly found the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating factor, but concluded that the elimination of this aggravating factor would not have resulted in a life sentence, stating:

Although we have rejected the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating factor, four valid aggravating circumstances remain. After reviewing this record, we are convinced that elimination of the cold and calculated aggravating factor would not have resulted in a life sentence for this appellant. We note the trial judge found no mitigating circumstances. See, e.g., Hill v. State, 515 So.2d 176 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993, 108 S.Ct. 1302, 99 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988); Bassett v. State, 449 So.2d 803 (Fla.1984).

Jackson, 530 So.2d at 274. Jackson's petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied. See Jackson v. Florida, 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S.Ct. 882, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989).

Jackson then sought relief in the state trial court by a motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentence under rule 3.850, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial judge summarily denied the motion without requesting an answer from the State and without providing a hearing for argument on the motion. In the order denying the motion, the trial judge stated:

The Motion, although characteristically voluminous, verbose, and petty, is legally insufficient on its face to entitle the Defendant to the relief sought. The Motion in fact does little but rehash evidentiary and procedural issues which were put to rest by direct appeal. The argument as to ineffective assistance of counsel is on its face legally insufficient to the point of being spurious.

Jackson then filed a motion for rehearing, together with a motion to amend, which sought a court order for access to records of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) concerning Linda Riley's two children. Jackson is the father of one of Riley's children. The trial judge denied both of these motions and Jackson now appeals the denial of all of the motions.

In this appeal, Jackson asserts: (1) that he is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on all claims; (2) that HRS's refusal to disclose evidence contained in its files relative to Jackson's and Linda Riley's children was constitutional error and violates chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1991); (3) that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because: (a) the court limited cross-examination of Linda Riley; (b) trial counsel failed to investigate and present impeaching evidence against Linda Riley; (c) counsel failed to present evidence that Jackson voluntarily turned himself in to authorities; (d) counsel failed to investigate and present ample available evidence in support of voluntary intoxication and mental health defenses; (e) there was a conflict of interest within the public defender's office that prevented an attorney-client relationship from forming, rendering counsel's assistance ineffective; and (f) Jackson was denied his rights to effective, adequate mental health assistance because relevant mitigating evidence was not presented or considered by the jury or judge due to trial counsel's failure to investigate and develop this evidence; (4) that Jackson's death sentence was invalid because unconstitutionally vague instructions were presented to the jury with regard to the aggravating factors of heinous, atrocious, or cruel and cold, calculated, and premeditated; (5) that the trial judge and this Court violated the eighth amendment by refusing to recognize the mitigating evidence that was in the record; (6) that the use of nonstatutory aggravating factors tainted Jackson's penalty phase proceeding; (7) that Jackson's jury was erroneously instructed that a life recommendation required a majority vote; (8) that Jackson's jury was repeatedly misled as to the true extent of their responsibility in the sentencing process; and (9) that Jackson's jury was erroneously instructed that the burden was on the defendant to prove that a life sentence With regard to Jackson's first claim, we agree with the trial judge that no evidentiary hearing was required on the issues presented in this case. We emphasize, however, that trial judges must now allow counsel for death penalty defendants to orally argue the legal issues presented in an initial motion for postconviction relief. Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993). In Huff, we explained:

was justified. Claims (5) through (9) are procedurally barred and merit no further discussion.

Because of the severity of punishment at issue in a death penalty postconviction case, we have determined that henceforth the judge must allow the attorneys the opportunity to appear before the court and be heard on an initial 3.850 motion. This does not mean that the judge must conduct an evidentiary hearing in all death penalty postconviction cases. Instead, the hearing before the judge is for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion.

Id., at 983. However, Huff was intended to be applied prospectively only and, therefore, is not available to Jackson.

Jackson's second claim concerns the trial court's order denying his request for production of HRS records regarding the seizure of his and Linda Riley's children. Jackson asserts that this information is relevant to impeach Riley, who was the State's principal witness against him. In Hoffman v. State, 613 So.2d 405 (Fla.1992), we explained the process by which prisoners sentenced to death may obtain the public records connected with their cases and in the hands of the prosecutors as distinguished from the records of state agencies that have not been connected in any respect with the trial and prosecution of such defendants. We stated:

[W]ith respect to agencies outside the judicial circuit in which the case was tried and those within the circuit which have no connection with the state attorney, requests for public records should be pursued under the procedure outlined in chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Because those requests will be...