Patrick v. State
Decision Date | 14 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SC17–246,No. SC16–801,SC16–801,SC17–246 |
Citation | 246 So.3d 253 |
Parties | Eric Kurt PATRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Eric Kurt Patrick, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Neal A. Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Suzanne Myers Keffer, Chief Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Lisa–Marie Lerner and Ilana Mitzner, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent
Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Tallahassee, Florida, Amicus Curiae The Capital Habeas Unit of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Florida
Eric Kurt Patrick, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Patrick also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the postconviction court's denial of Patrick's postconviction motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing on one claim. We grant Patrick's petition for writ of habeas corpus, which raises a valid claim under Hurst v. Florida , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017).
In 2009, Patrick was convicted of the kidnapping, robbery, and first-degree murder of Steven Schumacher. Patrick v. State , 104 So.3d 1046, 1054 (Fla. 2012). On direct appeal, we affirmed his convictions and sentences, including a sentence of death for the murder, and summarized the guilt-phase evidence as follows:
and was carrying a duffel bag. Patrick also had some abrasions on his upper body. Bukata inventoried the duffel bag and found blood-stained boots, jeans, briefs, and socks.... DNA tests identified Schumacher's blood on Patrick's jeans.
Patrick's jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of seven to five. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation, finding seven aggravators1 and sixteen nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.2 On appeal, this Court struck one aggravator (cold, calculated, and premeditated) but affirmed the death sentence, finding the consideration of this aggravator harmless error. Id. at 1055, 1068. Patrick's death sentence became final in 2013. Patrick v. Florida , 571 U.S. 839, 134 S.Ct. 85, 187 L.Ed.2d 65 (2013).
Thereafter, Patrick timely filed his initial motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, followed by a corrected motion, raising seven claims with subparts.3 Patrick later sought leave to amend his rule 3.851 motion to add a Hurst v. Florida claim. The postconviction court accepted the amendment and, after an evidentiary hearing on certain claims, denied the motion in its entirety. As to the Hurst v. Florida claim, the postconviction court noted that this Court had not yet determined whether the holding in that case would have retroactive effect and denied the claim without prejudice to Patrick's filing a future motion on the same grounds once this Court resolved the retroactivity issue in then-pending cases.
Patrick appealed the denial of his rule 3.851 motion and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court, requesting relief under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst . In his appeal, Patrick argues that the postconviction court erred with respect to the following claims: (1) that he is entitled to a new penalty phase under Hurst v. Florida ; (2) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to contest Patrick's Miranda waiver and the voluntariness of his confession; (3) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Frye challenge to shoeprint evidence or otherwise contest its credibility; (4) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present certain mitigation evidence at Patrick's penalty phase; and (5) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately question or challenge two jurors during voir dire. We find no reversible error in the postconviction court's procedural ruling that Patrick's Hurst v. Florida claim was premature, as it was presented to the postconviction court before this Court decided the retroactivity of that decision and Hurst in Mosley v. State , 209 So.3d 1248, 1276 (Fla. 2016). However, as explained below, we grant Patrick a new penalty phase under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst in accordance with his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because Patrick is entitled to a new penalty phase as argued in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the other penalty-phase claim raised before the postconviction court is moot and need not be addressed. We address each of the remaining claims in turn.
Each of the non- Hurst claims at issue on appeal alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Some of these claims were denied after an evidentiary hearing and some summarily. We review the summarily denied claims de novo, accepting their allegations as true to the extent they are not conclusively refuted by the record and reversing for an evidentiary hearing if they are facially sufficient to show entitlement to relief and raise an issue of fact. Ault v. State , 213 So.3d 670, 677–78 (Fla. 2017). As to the claims denied after an evidentiary hearing, we "defer to the postconviction court's factual findings as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record" and review the postconviction court's legal conclusions de novo. Seibert v. State , 64 So.3d 67, 78 (Fla. 2010).
Substantively, each ineffective assistance of counsel claim required Patrick to show the following, in accordance with Strickland v. Washington ,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tribbitt v. State
...constitutes deficient performance and whether a deficiency prejudiced the defendant are matters of law." (citing Patrick v. State , 246 So. 3d 253, 260 (Fla. 2018) ), reh'g denied , No. SC19-140, 2020 WL 5587395 (Fla. Sept. 18, 2020), and cert. denied sub nom. Patrick v. Florida , ––– U.S. ......
-
State v. Murray
...being the victim's was well-settled and strategically not an issue worth fighting. This was a strategic decision. See Patrick v. State , 246 So.3d 253, 262 (Fla. 2018) ("A decision that 262 So.3d 40lodging a particular challenge to the validity of evidence would be a waste of resources in l......
-
Allen v. State, SC17-1623
...was actually biased before proving that counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge that juror due to bias." Patrick v. State , 246 So.3d 253, 263 (Fla. 2018).Allen has failed to show that juror Carll was actually biased. Competent, substantial evidence supports the postconviction......
-
Smith v. State
...knowledge of corroborating facts [including the defendant's confession] can be a reasonable strategic decision." Patrick v. State , 246 So. 3d 253, 262 (Fla. 2018) (citing Darling v. State , 966 So. 2d 366, 382 (Fla. 2007) ). Counsel cannot be faulted for failing to investigate a theory tha......