Orme v. State, No. SC02-2625
Decision Date | 24 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. SC02-2625, No. SC03-1375. |
Parties | Roderick Michael ORME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Roderick Michael Orme, 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 and Meredith Charbula, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
Roderick Michael Orme, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals an order of the trial court denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 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 more fully explained below, we reverse in part the trial courts order denying postconviction relief and remand for a new penalty phase proceeding. We deny Orme's petition for habeas corpus relief.
The facts of this case are set forth in Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 260-61 (Fla.1996), as follows:
This Court affirmed Orme's conviction of first-degree murder and the sentence of death.
In his amended motion for postconviction relief, Orme raised twenty-five claims. The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: failing to present convincing evidence to the jury during both the guilt and penalty phases that Ormes bipolar disorder rendered him legally insane or unable to form the requisite intent to commit first-degree murder; failing to attend the general qualification of the jury pool; failing to request a continuance of the trial; and failing to present more evidence in mitigation during the penalty phase. After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief, finding that Orme failed to meet the standard of ineffectiveness set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). This is an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief. Orme raises three claims in his appeal. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claims for trial counsel's failure to present evidence of Orme's diagnosis of bipolar disorder, that his death sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), and its progeny, and that the general jury qualifications procedure in Bay County, where he was tried, was unconstitutional. For the reasons more fully discussed below, we grant relief on Orme's first claim involving his diagnosis of bipolar disorder and remand for a new penalty phase proceeding.
The first issue Orme presents on appeal is whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because evidence of his mental state was not thoroughly investigated and provided to the jury and judge. We find that Orme was denied effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial because trial counsel failed to investigate and present in mitigation evidence of Orme's bipolar diagnosis. Such evidence existed, and had it been presented, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the penalty phase proceedings would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687,
104 S.Ct. 2052. Regarding counsel's responsibility to investigate and inquire into matters that may be helpful to his client's case, the Strickland Court also said that "counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary." Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Stevens v. State, 552 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1989). As this Court has said, "the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dangcil
... ... See Orme v. State , 896 So. 2d 725, 737 (Fla. 2005) ; Commonwealth v. Barnoski , 418 Mass. 523, 638 N.E. 2d 9, 13-14 (1994) ; Davis v. State , 767 So. 2d ... ...
-
Lynch v. State
... ... Lynch and the State disagree concerning whether this case is more similar to Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725 (Fla.2005), or Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366 (Fla.2007). In Orme, we stated that "counsel has a duty to make ... ...
-
Coday v. State
... ... In Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725 (Fla.2005), 24 we found ... 946 So.2d 1018 ... counsel ineffective for failing to further investigate a defendant's ... ...
-
Gaither v. Sec'y
... ... Additionally, Petitioner argues for equitable tolling based on the state post-conviction court's delay in dismissing Petitioner's first post-conviction motion. The ... stages of his trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.'" Orme v ... State , 896 So.2d 725, 738 (Fla.2005) (quoting Garcia v ... State , 492 So.2d 360 (Fla.1986)) ... ...