Knight v. State
Decision Date | 03 November 2005 |
Docket Number | No. SC03-631.,No. SC04-1366.,SC03-631.,SC04-1366. |
Citation | 923 So.2d 387 |
Parties | Thomas KNIGHT, a/k/a Askari Abdullah Muhammad, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Askari Abdullah Muhammad, f/k/a Thomas Knight, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
D. Todd Doss, Lake City, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL and Sandra S. Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
Thomas Knight, n/k/a Askari Abdullah Muhammad, appeals an order of the circuit court summarily denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the circuit court's order denying postconviction relief and deny Muhammad's habeas petition.
The facts of the crimes in this case are set forth in our direct appeal opinion:
Upon arriving at his place of business and parking in his designated space [on the morning of July 17, 1974], Mr. Gans was approached by the defendant who was carrying an automatic rifle and was told to re-enter his automobile, to drive home and get Mrs. Gans, and to drive to the bank and get $50,000. While inside the bank, Mr. Gans informed the president about the abduction. The police and FBI were alerted. Mr. Gans then returned to his car with the money. He and his wife, shortly thereafter, were found shot to death, the fatal shots—perforating through their necks—having been fired from the rear seat of the vehicle. Thereafter, appellant was apprehended and taken into custody in a weeded area about 2,000 feet from the Gans' vehicle. Underneath him buried in the dirt was an automatic rifle and a paper bag containing $50,000. There were blood stains on his pants.
Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201, 202 (Fla. 1976). The jury convicted Muhammad of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended that the death penalty be imposed for each. Id. The trial judge sentenced Muhammad to death, and on direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions and sentences.1 Id. at 205.
In December 1979, Muhammad filed a habeas petition, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997, 998-99 (Fla.1981). While the petition was pending, the Governor signed a death warrant, scheduling Muhammad's execution for the Gans' murders for March 3, 1981. Id. at 999. On February 2, 1981, a motion for a stay of execution was filed with this Court. Id. On February 24, 1981, this Court denied the stay and Muhammad's habeas petition. Id. at 1003.
Muhammad then filed a habeas petition and a motion for stay of execution in the federal district court. Knight v. Dugger, 863 F.2d 705, 706-07 (11th Cir. 1988). The federal district court granted the stay, retained jurisdiction over the petition, and ordered Muhammad to exhaust state law remedies regarding his contention that trial counsel was ineffective. Id. at 707. Muhammad's subsequent rule 3.850 motion, filed in state court pursuant to the federal district court's directive, was denied without an evidentiary hearing, and on appeal the denial was affirmed. Muhammad v. State, 426 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1982).
When Muhammad then pursued his previously filed federal habeas petition, the federal district court ultimately dismissed the petition. Knight, 863 F.2d at 707. The Eleventh Circuit, on review of the dismissal, affirmed on six of the seven issues presented, but granted relief on one claim because it was uncertain whether a claimed Lockett/Hitchcock2 error was harmless. 863 F.2d at 710. The court
remand[ed] this case to the district court with instructions to enter an order granting the application for writ of habeas corpus, unless the State within a reasonable period of time either resentences Muhammad in a proceeding that comports with Lockett or vacates the death sentence and imposes a lesser sentence consistent with law.
Id.3 The State agreed to a resentencing, and on February 20, 1996, at the conclusion of the resentencing proceeding, the judge accepted the jury's recommendation of two death sentences for the Gans' murders by a vote of nine to three. Knight v. State, 746 So.2d 423, 426 (Fla.1998). The trial court again imposed death sentences for each murder. Id. On direct appeal from the resentencing proceeding, this Court affirmed the imposition of the death sentences. Id. at 437.
Muhammad then filed a rule 3.850 motion on November 7, 2000, and an amended rule 3.850 motion on March 23, 2002. After a Huff4 hearing, the circuit court summarily denied all of Muhammad's postconviction claims, concluding that they were either procedurally barred, conclusively refuted by the record, facially or legally insufficient as alleged, without merit as a matter of law, or not ripe for consideration.5
On appeal, Muhammad contests the summary denial of the majority of his postconviction claims. Upon careful review of Muhammad's motion and the circuit court's detailed order, we find no error in the circuit court's determination that summary denial was appropriate on each of the claims presented. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on these claims because they are either procedurally barred,6 conclusively refuted by the record,7 facially or legally insufficient as alleged,8 or without merit as a matter of law.9 For further explanation of the circuit court's resolution of the individual issues, we attach as an appendix the order denying postconviction relief rather than repeating in detail those reasons in this opinion.
Muhammad raises five claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus: (1) whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise on appeal the issue of the State's delay in resentencing Muhammad; (2) whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to ensure a complete appellate record; (3) whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge on appeal the resentencing court's refusal to individually voir dire prospective jurors; (4) whether execution by electrocution or lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (5) whether rule 4-3.5(d) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar is unconstitutional.10 For the reasons that follow, we deny habeas relief.
In Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725 (Fla.2005), we recently explained the standard for analyzing claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel:
Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are properly raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus addressed to the appellate court that heard the direct appeal. See Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637 (Fla.2000). Such claims must be analyzed using the same two-pronged test promulgated in Strickland. That is, we must determine whether counsel's performance was deficient, and, if so, we must determine if the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. In Rutherford we said:
If a legal issue "would in all probability have been found to be without merit" had counsel raised the issue on direct appeal, the failure of appellate counsel to raise the meritless issue will not render appellate counsel's performance ineffective. Williamson v. Dugger, 651 So.2d 84, 86 (Fla.1994); see, e.g., Kokal v. Dugger, 718 So.2d 138, 142 (Fla. 1998); Groover, 656 So.2d at 425. This is generally true as to issues that would have been found to be procedurally barred had they been raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Groover, 656 So.2d at 425; Medina v. Dugger, 586 So.2d 317, 318 (Fla.1991).
Id. at 643; accord Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 74 (Fla.2003). This principle is applicable to this case unless the error is deemed to be fundamental error. Fundamental error is an error that "reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895 898 (Fla.1996) (quoting State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991)).
In his first habeas claim, Muhammad contends that appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise on appeal the issue of the State's failure to resentence Muhammad "within a reasonable period of time." Knight, 863 F.2d at 710. Upon review of the record, we conclude, as did the circuit court in denying a similar postconviction claim, that Muhammad was responsible, in part, for the delay in resentencing. Thus, this claim is denied. See San Martin v. State, 705 So.2d 1337, 1347 (Fla.1997) (). "[A]ppellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to present a meritless claim." Pietri v. State, 885 So.2d 245, 273 (Fla.2004).11
Muhammad next asserts that appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to ensure that a complete record was compiled on appeal. We conclude that this claim is without merit because the record does, in fact, contain the allegedly omitted portions and because Muhammad has not alleged a sufficient basis of prejudice with respect to the untranscribed portions of the resentencing proceeding. See, e.g., Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 789 (Fla.2004) ( ). Thus, we also reject this claim.
We conclude that Muhammad's claim that appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge on appeal the resentencing court's refusal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muhammad v. Tucker
...Mr. Muhammad appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. See Knight v. State, 923 So.2d 387 (Fla.2006)( Knight VII ) (per curiam). Mr. Muhammad also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court, which denied reli......
-
Taylor v. Sec'y
...of claims that either were or should have been raised below. See Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 805 (Fla. 2007); Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387, 395 (Fla. 2005). "It is important to note that habeas corpus petitions are not to be used for additional appeals on questions which could have......
-
Lukehart v. State
...State, 926 So.2d 1243, 1248 (Fla.2006) (shell motion filed September 27, 2001, and amended motion filed March 11, 2002); Knight v. State, 923 So.2d 387, 415 (Fla.2005) (shell motion filed November 7, 2000, and amended motion filed August 23, 2002); Howell v. State, 877 So.2d 697, 700 (Fla.2......
-
Troy v. Sec'y of Dep't of Corr., Case No. 8:11-cv-796-T30-AEP
...have and should have been raised on direct appeal." Elledge v. State, 911 So. 2d 57, 77 n. 27 (Fla. 2005); see also Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387, 391 n.6 (Fla. 2005) (holding as procedurally barred an initial post-conviction claim alleging juror misconduct). A defendant may not attempt t......
-
Appeals
...found to be without merit, the failure to raise the issue does not render appellate counsel’s performance ineffective. Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2005) First District Court of Appeal A claim that appellate counsel failed to raise an issue regarding the failure of the trial court ......