Muhammad v. State, 75055

• Decision Date: 11 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 75055,75055
• Citation: 603 So.2d 488
• Parties: Askari Abdullah MUHAMMAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 603 So.2d 488, 17 Fla. L. Week. S359
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 488

603 So.2d 488

Askari Abdullah MUHAMMAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75055.

603 So.2d 488, 17 Fla. L. Week. S359

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 11, 1992.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, 1992.

Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, and Judith J. Dougherty, Asst. CCR, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Fariba N. Komeily, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

HARDING, Justice.

Askari Abdullah Muhammad, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.

Muhammad was convicted of first-degree murder for fatally stabbing a prison guard. Muhammad's motion to proceed pro se was twice denied by two separate judges, who later recused themselves from the case. Muhammad's first trial ended in mistrial. When Muhammad renewed his request to proceed pro se, a third judge ruled that Muhammad could represent himself. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Muhammad waived his right to a jury recommendation in the penalty phase, and the trial judge sentenced him to death. On appeal, this Court affirmed both the judgment and the sentence. Muhammad v. State, 494 So.2d 969 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101, 107 S.Ct. 1332, 94 L.Ed.2d 183 (1987). In February 1989, Muhammad sought collateral relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which was summarily denied by the trial court. Muhammad now appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief.

Of the eighteen claims ¹ presented in his 3.850 motion, Muhammad seeks review of the trial court's rejection of the following fifteen: 1) that summary denial was erroneous and the trial court erred in failing to either identify or attach the portion of the record that refutes each claim; 2) that Muhammad's rights were violated because no reliable transcript of the trial exists and critical records were not included in the record on direct appeal; 3) that Muhammad was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of Faretta; ² 4) that Muhammad was denied due process and equal protection because the appointed mental health expert failed to conduct a professionally competent evaluation and this in turn caused counsel to render ineffective assistance; 5) that Muhammad was denied effective assistance of counsel by the court's order that defense counsel not present an insanity defense; 6) that Muhammad's rights were abrogated because he was forced to undergo criminal judicial proceedings although he was not legally competent; 7) that the death sentence was unreliable because Muhammad was not competent to waive his sentencing jury yet the penalty proceedings were not conducted before an advisory jury; 8) that Muhammad was denied his rights as a pro se defendant at both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial; 9) that state misconduct throughout the guilt and penalty phases denied Muhammad's right to a fundamentally fair and reliable capital trial and sentencing determination; 10) that the trial court's denial of Muhammad's motions for change of venue and for individual, sequestered voir dire deprived him of his right to a fair and impartial jury; 11) that Muhammad was indicted by a biased grand jury; 12) that the trial court erred in failing to consider Muhammad's mental deficiencies as nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and in considering nonstatutory aggravating factors; 13) that the trial court unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof with regard to the appropriateness of a sentence of life imprisonment; 14) that the jury and judge improperly considered the victim's character and "victim impact" information; and 15) that the "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance was applied without articulation or application of a meaningful narrowing principle in violation of Maynard. ³

We affirm the trial court's summary rejection of claims two through eight, claim nine with the exception of the Brady violation, and claims ten through...