Johnston v. Singletary, 82457
| Decision Date | 23 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82457,82457 |
| Citation | 640 So.2d 1102 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S340 David Eugene JOHNSTON, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael J. Minerva, Capital Collateral Representative, Martin J. McClain, Chief Asst. CCR and Daren L. Shippy, Asst. CCR Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Margene A. Roper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondents.
David Eugene Johnston is a prisoner under sentence of death. Recently, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in reviewing a petition for habeas corpus found error at Johnston's original sentencing. Johnston v. Singletary, No. 91-797-CIV-ORL-22 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 16, 1993). The court held that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel jury instruction was constitutionally infirm under Espinosa v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). With regard to this issue, the district court stated:
Accordingly, because only the Florida courts can determine the proper approach to [Johnston's] sentencing, the writ of habeas corpus will be conditionally granted, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, unless the State of Florida initiates appropriate proceedings in state court. Because a new sentencing hearing before a jury is not constitutionally required, the State of Florida may initiate whatever state court proceedings it finds appropriate, including seeking a life sentence or the performance of a reweighing or harmless error analysis by the Florida Supreme Court.
Johnston, slip op. at 28. The State filed a timely motion asking this Court to review the application of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor in this case. In view of the federal district court's order, we concluded to do so. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1) and (7) of the Florida Constitution.
In 1984, Johnston was convicted of the first-degree murder of an eighty-four-year-old woman. During the sentencing phase, the trial court charged the jury on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor, using an instruction identical to the one found unconstitutional in Espinosa. Subsequently, the jury recommended death by a vote of eight to four. The trial court, finding three aggravating factors 1 and no mitigation, followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Johnston to death.
On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Johnston v. State, 497 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla.1986). In addressing Johnston's argument that the evidence did not support a finding of heinous, atrocious, or cruel, we stated:
The trial court cites to the testimony of a medical examiner to support its finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The medical examiner testified that the victim, an 84-year-old woman who had retired to bed for the evening, was strangled and stabbed three times completely though [sic] the neck and twice in the upper chest. The medical examiner's testimony also revealed that it took the helpless victim three to five minutes to die after the knife wound severed the jugular vein. The court also mentioned, correctly, that the victim was in terror and experienced considerable pain during the murderous attack. The heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance was properly applied in this instance.
Id. at 871 (citations omitted).
In 1988, after a warrant for his death was signed by the governor, Johnston filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion, Johnston challenged the constitutionality of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel jury instruction given in his case. The court denied Johnston's 3.850 motion, specifically finding the challenge to the heinous, atrocious, or cruel jury instruction procedurally barred because it could have and should have been raised on direct appeal.
Subsequently, Johnston appealed the denial of postconviction relief and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In both, Johnston claimed that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor. This Court affirmed the denial of 3.850 relief and denied the habeas petition. Johnston v. Dugger, 583 So.2d 657, 663 (Fla.1991) (hereinafter Johnston II). Regarding the 3.850 appeal, we rejected the jury instruction claim stating that it was "without merit or ... procedurally barred because [it has] been or should have been raised on direct appeal." Id. at 662. We stated that the corresponding habeas claim was "procedurally barred because [it was] raised or should have been raised on direct appeal." Id. at 663.
Johnston next raised the heinous, atrocious, or cruel jury instruction claim in the federal habeas petition referred to above. The federal district court judge concluded that from the face of our opinion upholding the denial of Johnston's motion for postconviction relief, she could not determine that the rejection of this claim was based on the independent state ground that it was not preserved for appeal. Accordingly, the judge addressed the issue on the merits.
The State argues that the issue is procedurally barred. Even if it is not, the State contends that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnston objects to this Court's entertaining the State's motion and argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing proceeding before a jury. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyle v. State
...vague HAC instruction was subject to harmless error analysis under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) ); Johnston v. Singletary, 640 So.2d 1102, 1104–05 (Fla.1994) (explaining that the ‘jury would have found Johnston's brutal stabbing and strangulation of the eighty-four-year-old ......
-
Jennings v. State
...vague HAC instruction was subject to harmless error analysis under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)); Johnston v. Singletary, 640 So.2d 1102, 1104-05 (Fla.1994) (explaining that the "jury would have found Johnston's brutal stabbing and strangulation of the eighty-four-year-old v......
-
Johnston v. Singletary
...the erroneous instruction would not have affected the jury's recommendation or the trial court's sentence. Johnston v. Singletary, 640 So.2d 1102, 1104 (Fla.1994), (Johnston I ), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1195, 115 S.Ct. 1262, 131 L.Ed.2d 141 (1995). The district court subsequently evaluated t......
-
Johnston v. Moore, SC00-1024.
...court's order, the State requested this Court to clarify its prior rejection of Johnston's HAC claim. We did so in Johnston v. Singletary, 640 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1994), concluding that (1) Johnston's HAC claim was procedurally barred and (2) even if the issue was not procedurally barred, the e......