Martin v. State
Decision Date | 16 January 2020 |
Docket Number | No. SC18-1696,No. SC18-214,SC18-214,SC18-1696 |
Citation | 311 So.3d 778 |
Parties | Arthur James MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Arthur James Martin, Petitioner, v. Mark S. Inch, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert S. Friedman, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Dawn B. Macready and Elizabeth Spiaggi, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Northern Region, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent
Arthur James Martin appeals an order of the circuit court denying in part his third amended motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. He further petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.1 For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the order of the postconviction court and deny the habeas petition.
Martin was convicted of the 2009 first-degree murder of Javon Daniels. Martin v. State , 151 So. 3d 1184, 1187 (Fla. 2014). The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of nine to three. Id. at 1189. The trial court followed that recommendation and sentenced Martin to death. Id. at 1190. In the opinion on direct appeal, the Court detailed the facts surrounding the crime:
. Daniels was shot in his left hand, left arm, right arm, left side, right side, right thigh, and chest. Four of the gunshot wounds produced fatal injuries to Daniels' lungs, heart, liver, and stomach. ... The gunshot wounds to each of Daniels' arms broke the humerus in each arm, and the gunshot wound to his left hand broke two of the bones in his hand. These broken bones incapacitated Daniels and left him incapable of completing his attempted escape from the SUV.
In imposing a sentence of death, the trial court found the existence of three aggravating factors: (1) the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification (CCP); (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); and (3) prior violent felony (based upon a prior conviction for second-degree murder). Id. at 1188, 1190. Each aggravating factor was given great weight. Id. at 1190. The trial court found one statutory mitigating circumstance: Martin's age (forty years old at the time of the murder), which was given slight weight "based on minimal evidence of Martin's significant emotional immaturity." Id. With respect to the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances proposed by Martin, the trial court found as follows:
Id. at 1190 n.4. The trial court also found and gave slight weight to two nonstatutory mitigating circumstances that were not proposed by Martin: (1) Martin had "temper issues"; and (2) when Martin was a child, he was attacked by other children. Id. at 1190 n.5.
On direct appeal, Martin raised four issues: (1) whether the trial court made improper findings of fact and gave insufficient consideration in mitigation to Martin's intellectual functioning; (2) whether the trial court failed to consider, find, and weigh as a mitigating circumstance that Martin had a history of drug and alcohol abuse; (3) whether the trial court erred in finding the CCP and HAC aggravating factors; and (4) whether Florida's death penalty sentencing scheme was unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). 151 So. 3d at 1190. We rejected each claim, concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, and determined the death sentence was proportionate. Id. at 1190-99. Accordingly, we affirmed Martin's conviction and sentence. Id. at 1199.2
Martin filed his initial rule 3.851 motion for postconviction relief on February 18, 2016, but it was stricken. His first amended motion was also stricken. On March 31, 2016, Martin filed his second amended motion for postconviction relief, raising nine claims: (1) Martin is intellectually disabled and, therefore, his execution would violate the United States and Florida Constitutions; (2) trial counsel was ineffective during jury selection by (a) failing to conduct a meaningful death qualification of the jury, (b) failing to educate the jury on the penalty-phase process, (c) failing to inquire about racial bias, and (d) diminishing the jury's role in sentencing in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), and failing to object to comments that minimized the role of the jury; (3) trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase by failing to (a) conduct an adequate investigation, (b) adequately argue pretrial motions in limine, (c) effectively cross-examine guilt-phase witnesses, (d) present the testimony of two eyewitnesses, (e) litigate and challenge the photographic identifications, (f) hire a forensic consultant or ballistics expert, and (g) adequately challenge the evidence during closing statements and present a viable defense; (4) prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt phase; (5) trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase by failing to (a) conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, (b) adequately prepare the defense expert who evaluated Martin for intellectual disability, and (c) challenge aggravating factors and present mitigating circumstances; (6) Martin was denied his right to a qualified mental health expert pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma , 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) ; (7) cumulative error; (8) Florida's lethal injection protocol is cruel and unusual punishment; and (9) Martin's death sentence violates Hurst v. Florida , 577 U.S. 92, 136 S. Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Caldwell .
The postconviction court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on claims (1), (2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(c)-(g), (5)(a), 5(b), and all but one subpart of (5)(c)—the failure to challenge the prior violent felony aggravating factor. Thereafter, the court allowed Martin to file a third amended motion for postconviction relief to add a tenth claim alleging Brady and Giglio violations.3 During a status conference, the court noted that Martin is entitled to a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilbert v. State
...and constitute "fundamental error when, but for the misconduct, the jury could not have reached the verdict it did." Martin v. State , 311 So. 3d 778, 811–12 (Fla. 2020) (emphasis omitted), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 417, 208 L.Ed.2d 120 (2020). While prosecutors generally may......
-
Gilbert v. State
...and constitute "fundamental error when, but for the misconduct, the jury could not have reached the verdict it did." Martin v. State, 311 So. 3d 778, 811-12 (Fla. 2020) (emphasis omitted). While prosecutors generally may not "appeal[] to the jury's sympathy for [a] victim," the first commen......