Jones v. State

Citation998 So.2d 573
Decision Date23 December 2008
Docket NumberNo. SC07-729.,No. SC06-474.,SC06-474.,SC07-729.
PartiesHarry JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Harry Jones, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNeil, etc., Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Jeffrey M. Hazen and Harry Brody of Brody and Hazen, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Stephen R. White, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.

REVISED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Harry Jones was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 killing of George Wilson Young, Jr. He now appeals an order of the circuit court denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's order and deny Jones's petition.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts are taken from Jones's direct appeal. See Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1994). Young's body was found in Boat Pond on Horseshoe Plantation in north Leon County. Although Young suffered several injuries, the cause of death was freshwater drowning.

On the day of the murder, Young had gone to a liquor store on the west side of Tallahassee. While he was talking with his friend Archie Hamilton, who worked there, Harry Jones and Timothy Hollis came in. When Hollis, who was intoxicated, appeared to get sick, Jones took him to the restroom. He returned in time to see Young pull money from his pocket to pay for a half pint of gin. Young helped Jones take Hollis outside, and agreed to give the two men a ride home. Several witnesses saw the three men leave the liquor store in Young's red Ford Bronco II a little before 7 p.m. Hollis's mother testified that Jones and a white-haired man brought her son home in a red truck and then left the house together. Young and Jones were next seen together between 7:30 and 8 p.m. purchasing a six-pack of beer at a local convenience store.

At about 8:05 p.m., Young's truck was involved in an accident on the north side of town, west of Boat Pond. Jones, the only occupant, was taken to the emergency room and admitted to the hospital. When authorities realized that the owner of the truck Jones was driving was missing, a detective was sent to question Jones. He told the detective that he borrowed the car from a man in "Frenchtown" for twenty dollars. The next day, when authorities learned that Jones had been seen with Young before the accident, officers questioned him again.

While in Jones's hospital room, officers seized a bag of his clothing, which hospital personnel had removed. The clothing was tested. Soil and pollen samples taken from Jones's shoes and pants were similar to samples taken from Boat Pond. Law enforcement also seized lottery tickets and cash that had been removed from Jones's pockets. The lottery tickets had been purchased at the same time and place as tickets found in Young's truck.

Jones was charged with first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft of a motor vehicle and incarcerated in a medical cell with Kevin Prim and Jay Watson. Prim testified that Jones told him that he met a "guy" at a liquor store. After observing the guy pull money from his pocket to pay for his purchase, Jones talked the guy into giving him and his intoxicated "cousin" a ride home. After dropping the cousin off, Jones and the guy went to a pond. Jones attempted to take the man's money and a struggle ensued. Jones admitted breaking the man's arm during the struggle and then holding him down in water until he stopped "popping up." Watson, the other cellmate, testified that he overheard Jones tell Prim that he killed a man. Jones was found guilty as charged.

During the penalty phase, Jones testified that on May 31 he and Hollis drank most of the night and began drinking again the next morning and throughout that day. When he was taken to the hospital after the accident, his blood alcohol level was .269.

By a vote of ten to two, the jury recommended that Jones be sentenced to death. The trial court followed the recommendation, finding three aggravating circumstances and three mitigating circumstances. In aggravation, the court found: (1) Jones previously had been convicted of another violent felony (including attempted robbery, robbery, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and robbery with a firearm and kidnapping); (2) the murder was committed while Jones was engaged in the commission of a robbery; and (3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). In mitigation, the court found: (1) Jones's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform this conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired; (2) he had suffered from a traumatic and difficult childhood; and (3) he had the love and support of his family.

On appeal, Jones raised several claims.1 We affirmed his convictions and sentences. Jones, 648 So.2d at 669. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Jones v. Florida, 515 U.S. 1147, 115 S.Ct. 2588, 132 L.Ed.2d 836 (1995). Jones then filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising thirteen claims.2 After a Huff3 hearing, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on claims one through three (in part) and claim four. After the hearing, the trial court denied all claims. Jones now appeals. He also petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.

II. ANALYSIS

Jones raises three issues on appeal and three issues in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We address each of these in turn.

A. Postconviction Claims

In his appeal from the trial court's denial of postconviction relief, Jones raises three issues. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's denial of these claims.

1. Brady and Giglio Claims

Jones first argues that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by (1) failing to disclose evidence of an alleged agreement with Kevin Prim, a witness testifying for the State at Jones's trial; (2) failing to disclose information about Prim's "on-going criminal activity;" and (3) failing to disclose that Trooper Don Ross "observed the victim [driving under the influence] in the northern part of Leon County prior to his meeting Mr. Jones." Jones also claims that the State violated Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), by presenting or failing to correct false testimony about Prim's release from jail. We first explain the standards for analyzing claims under Brady and Giglio and then address each of Jones's arguments.

Under Brady, the State must disclose to the defense knowledge of material exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194; see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). To demonstrate a Brady violation the defendant must prove that (1) the evidence is favorable to him, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) the State willfully or inadvertently suppressed it; and (3) that the suppression resulted in prejudice. Evidence is prejudicial or material under Brady if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the trial would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Thus, the critical question is whether the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555).

To establish a claim under Giglio, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) the prosecutor presented or failed to correct false testimony; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) the evidence was material. Guzman v. State, 941 So.2d 1045, 1050 (Fla.2006). Once the first two prongs are established, the false evidence is deemed material if there is any reasonable possibility that it could have affected the jury's verdict. Id. Under this standard, the State has the burden to prove that the false testimony was not material by demonstrating it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; see also Mordenti v. State, 894 So.2d 161, 175 (Fla. 2004).

In reviewing Joness Brady and Giglio claims, we are bound by the trial court's credibility determinations and factual findings to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Johnson v. State, 921 So.2d 490, 507 (Fla.2005); Guzman, 941 So.2d at 1049-50. However, we decide de novo whether the facts are sufficient to establish each element. Id. Giving deference to the trial courts rulings on questions of fact, especially when such factual findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, we deny each of Joness Brady and Giglio claims. See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 514-15 (Fla.1998) ([W]e are mindful that this Court, as an appellate body, has no authority to substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial judge when competent evidence exists to support the trial judges conclusion.) (quoting State v. Spaziano, 692 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla.1997)).

a. Agreement

Jones claims that the State failed to disclose evidence of a promise it made to Kevin Prim, a key trial witness. While evidence of a promise of leniency in exchange for favorable testimony would fall within Brady, the trial court found, based on evidence presented, that there were no promises made to Kevin Prim.

At trial, Prim denied that he had been promised any benefits for informing the police about Jones's case. At the evidentiary hearing below, both Detective Mike Wood and prosecutor Neil Wade confirmed that they had made no such promises. Although Jones presented contradictory evidence, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
94 cases
  • Stanley v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 29, 2020
    ...relieve a petitioner from satisfying the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008):"Jones contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his being shackled in front of members of the venire......
  • Stallworth v. State, CR-09-1433
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 8, 2013
    ...... [to the specific findings of fact], the Page 13 basis of the trial court's ruling, whether procedural or on the merits, must be clear.' Jones v. State , 709 So. 2d 498, 498 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Henderson v. State , 570 So. 2d 879 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)). 'A statement of the basis ......
  • Reynolds v. State, SC17–793
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 5, 2018
    ...... Preliminarily, we look to whether the jury recommendation was unanimous. See, e.g. , Kaczmar v. State , 228 So.3d 1, 9 (Fla. 2017) ; Jones v. State , 212 So.3d 321, 343–44 (Fla. 2017) ; King , 211 So.3d at 890 ; Davis , 207 So.3d at 174–75. Here, the jury recommendation was ......
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 6, 2015
    ......They were known to be living in Etowah County, Alabama. Ron Jones, an officer with the Hokes Bluff police department, knew both Defendants. Providing assistance to the Houston County Sheriffs department, Officer ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Appeals
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...evidence. The appellate court decides de novo whether the facts are sufficient to establish each element of the claim. Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008) (See Poole v. State , 997 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2008), Pariente, J., concurring in result only, for the argument that when the defense......
  • Post-conviction relief
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...of when the court should order an evidentiary hearing on an allegation that defendant was shackled before the jury.) Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008) Where counsel did not seek to exclude evidence that defendant committed an uncharged sexual battery on a victim during the events l......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...evidence. The appellate court decides de novo whether the facts are sufficient to establish each element of the claim. Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008) The state commits no Brady violation by failing to disclose a prostitute’s alias and arrest record when the defense could have le......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT