Jones v. Moore
| Decision Date | 05 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. SC00-660.,SC00-660. |
| Parties | Clarence JONES, Petitioner, v. Michael W. MOORE, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Steven L. Seliger of Garcia & Seliger, Quincy, FL; Gregory C. Smith, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel—Northern Region, Tallahassee, FL; and Gail E. Anderson, Special Assistant CCC-NR, Greensboro, FL, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Curtis M. French, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.
Clarence Jones, a state prisoner under sentence of death, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. We deny the petition.
Jones was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1988 first-degree shooting murder of Tallahassee police officer Ernest Ponce de Leon. The facts are as follows:
Jones v. State, 580 So.2d 143, 144-45 (Fla. 1991) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 878, 112 S.Ct. 221, 116 L.Ed.2d 179 (1991) (Jones I).
Jones's trial counsel and appellate counsel were the same individual, Clifford L. Davis.1 This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.2See id. Jones subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 for postconviction relief. The trial judge3 denied the motion. We affirmed. See Jones v. State, 732 So.2d 313 (Fla.1999) (Jones II)
.4 Jones now files this habeas corpus petition raising seven issues challenging the legality of his conviction and death sentence.5 We find several issues to be procedurally barred without the need of elaboration.6 We find the remaining issues either procedurally barred or meritless.
Our habeas corpus standard of review for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel mirrors the Strickland7 standard for trial counsel ineffectiveness. See Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000)
. We said in Rutherford:
[T]his Court's ability to grant habeas relief on the basis of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness is limited to those situations where the petitioner establishes first, that appellate counsel's performance was deficient because "the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance" and second, that the petitioner was prejudiced because appellate counsel's deficiency "compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result."
Id. at 643 (quoting Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 660 (Fla.2000)).
With regard to evidentiary objections which trial counsel made during the trial and which appellate counsel did not raise on direct appeal, this Court evaluates the prejudice or second prong of the Strickland test first. In doing so, we begin our review of the prejudice prong by examining the specific objection made by trial counsel for harmful error. A successful petition must demonstrate that the erroneous ruling prejudiced the petitioner. If we conclude that the trial court's ruling was not erroneous, then it naturally follows that habeas petitioner was not prejudiced on account of appellate counsel's failure to raise that issue. If we do conclude that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was erroneous, we then consider whether such error is harmful error. If that error was harmless, the petitioner likewise would not have been prejudiced.
Jones argues that appellate counsel should have pursued on direct appeal objections to the admission of details of his prison escape in Maryland. The gravamen of Jones's prison escape contention is that appellate counsel erred in not raising objections made by trial counsel to those portions of Antonie Garrett's testimony regarding the Maryland prison escape. Garrett, a Maryland correctional officer, testified that while he was working yard duty at the Maryland House of Corrections on June 25, 1988, inmate Griffin threatened Garrett with a knife. His testimony revealed that Griffin prevented him from moving or sounding an alarm while inmate Goins cut a hole in the prison fence. Garrett watched as a total of five inmates went through the hole Goins cut in the fence.8 Trial counsel objected to this testimony and argued that it was not relevant, and even if relevant, the prejudicial effect far outweighed its probative value.
By the time Garrett testified, other witnesses had testified without objection that Jones had escaped from prison. Officer Berkley Clayton testified that he had received flyers concerning a Maryland prison escape. Officer Clayton testified that from these flyers he identified Jones, Griffin, and Goins as three individuals who had escaped from the Maryland prison. Traveling companion Harris testified that Jones, Griffin, and Goins told her that the trio had escaped from prison and that they were not going to go back. Thus, at the time Garrett testified, the jury had been exposed to Jones's prison escape.9
On direct appeal, objections under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688, 696 (Fla.1996)
. In Williamson, we said:
Almost all evidence introduced during a criminal trial prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant. In reviewing testimony about a collateral crime that is admitted over an objection based upon section 90.403, a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice. Only when the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded.
(Citations omitted.)
The trial judge, after viewing Garrett's proffer, specifically ruled that Garrett's testimony was relevant and found that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial judge reasoned that Garrett's testimony was relevant because the escape, when considering the closeness in time to the murder (approximately two weeks) and the fact the victim was a police officer, went to show Jones's state of mind. The trial judge specifically prohibited the State from exploring the reasons why Jones was in custody in Maryland.
Based on our review of the trial record regarding this issue, we conclude that the trial court's determination that the evidence could be admitted was not error. We agree with the trial judge's ruling that Garrett's testimony had relevance to show the escapees' states of mind at the time of the criminal episode involving the shooting in Tallahassee. We further agree with the trial judge in his overruling the section 90.403 objection in the context of the evidence already admitted in the trial. Moreover, the trial judge did not allow the details of the escape to become a focus of the trial. Thus, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying this objection. Accordingly, we determine that Jones has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Even if we were to accept that the trial judge's section 90.403 ruling was erroneous and appellate counsel's performance was deficient for failing to raise this point, the other evidence in the record, including Harris's eyewitness testimony, would have made such error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So.2d 1165, 1167 (Fla.1989)
().
Similarly, we find meritless Jones's next contention that appellate counsel should have raised as an appellate point the admission of various photographs found at the crime scene. The trial judge allowed into evidence photographs found in the car used by the escapees that displayed Jones, Griffin, and Goins together with guns and money. Trial counsel objected to the photos on relevance and unfair prejudice grounds and raised an objection to one photo on the added ground that the photo suggested other crimes. The trial judge admitted the photos, determining that the guns depicted in the photos were similar to guns that were used in the murder and found in or near the car in which Jones was riding at the time of the murder.10 The trial judge excluded the writings on the photos. The trial judge also excluded photos that contained what appeared to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...Moore, 794 So.2d 595, 600-01 (Fla.2001). This procedural bar also acts to prohibit variant claims previously decided. See Jones v. Moore, 794 So.2d 579, 586 (Fla. 2001) (finding procedural bar to habeas claim which was variant to claim previously addressed). This claim is therefore procedur......
-
Dennis v. State
...this Court evaluates the prejudice or second prong of the Strickland test first.” Valle, 837 So.2d at 910 (quoting Jones v. Moore, 794 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2001)). Here, even if the admission of this testimony was erroneous, Dennis cannot demonstrate prejudice because any error was harmless.......
-
Jones v. Tucker
...pending a ruling on the state habeas petition. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition and denied rehearing. Jones v. Moore, 794 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2001) (Jones III). Mr. Jones later filed an amended petition in this court, and the state responded. A second stay was entered pending the ......
-
Serrano v. State
...if the admission of this gun evidence were considered error, the error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jones v. Moore, 794 So.2d 579, 585 (Fla.2001) (upholding admission of photos of defendant with guns that were similar to guns used in the murder and concluding that even i......