Puiatti v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 15 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–15581.,12–15581. |
| Citation | 732 F.3d 1255 |
| Parties | Carl PUIATTI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Steven Alan Reiss, Adam B. Banks, Miranda S. Schiller, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, NY, Ardith Michelle Bronson, Edward Soto, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Scott Andrew Browne, Attorney General's Office, Tampa, FL, for Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 8:92–cv–00539–EAK–EAJ.
Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
Carl Puiatti, a Florida inmate under a death sentence, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenged his convictions and death sentence on multiple grounds. The district court first granted his petition on one ground and did not consider other issues, and we reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to consider the other issues raised in the petition. See Puiatti v. McNeil, 626 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.2010).
On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, and denied Puiatti's remaining claims. We granted a certificate of appealability on one issue: “[w]hether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to Puiatti in the penalty phase of his capital murder trial in allegedly failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence.” Having considered the state court record, the evidentiary record in the district court, and the parties' submissions, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court's denial of Puiatti's § 2254 petition.
On August 16, 1983, Puiatti and Robert Glock kidnapped, robbed, and murdered Sharilyn Ritchie. Puiatti (age 20) and Glock (age 22) confronted Ritchie as she got out of her car in the parking lot of a shopping mall in Bradenton, Florida. Glock pulled out a .38 pistol and forced Ritchie into the backseat of her car at gunpoint. Puiatti and Glock got in Ritchie's car, Glock took $50 from Ritchie's purse, and Puiatti drove them to Ritchie's bank, where they made Ritchie cash a $100 check. Then Puiatti drove Ritchie more than 60 miles, to an orange grove outside Dade City, Florida. Puiatti took Ritchie's wedding ring and left her at the roadside.
After driving away for a short distance, Glock said he thought they should kill Ritchie, and Puiatti agreed. Puiatti turned the car around, and when the car pulled abreast of Ritchie, Puiatti shot her twice from inside the car. Puiatti began to drive away, but when Glock saw Ritchie was still standing, Puiatti handed the gun to Glock, turned the car around, and drove by Ritchie again. Glock shot Ritchie. When Ritchie still did not fall, Puiatti, still driving, made a third pass and Glock shot Ritchie again. Ritchie collapsed and died from her injuries.
Four days later, on August 20, 1983, Glock and Puiatti were arrested in New Jersey on unrelated charges while driving Ritchie's car. New Jersey state troopers discovered that Puiatti and Glock were traveling in a vehicle stolen from a murder victim. The state troopers found a firearm inside the stolen vehicle and later determined that the weapon was used to kill Ritchie. The state troopers alerted Floridaauthorities of these discoveries, and, with the assistance of detectives from Florida, questioned Puiatti and Glock about Ritchie's murder.
While still in New Jersey, both Puiatti and Glock separately confessed to robbing, kidnapping, and murdering Ritchie. After being extradited to Florida, Puiatti and Glock each signed a joint statement confessing to their crimes and resolving minor inconsistencies in their individual confessions.
At Puiatti's and Glock's joint trial in 1984, Puiatti was represented by two attorneys from the state public defender's office—William Eble and Howardene Garrett. Eble was primarily responsible for the guilt phase, while Garrett mainly handled the penalty phase.
At trial, the State's witnesses testified about the discovery of Ritchie's body, the ensuing police investigation, the extent of Ritchie's injuries, the cause of her death, and the New Jersey traffic stop that led to Puiatti's and Glock's arrests. The State introduced Puiatti's and Glock's separate confessions, and their joint confession. Neither Puiatti nor Glock presented evidence. In their closing arguments, neither co-defendant contested guilt; rather, both argued that the evidence supported a conviction for second-degree, not first-degree, murder.
The jury found Puiatti and Glock guilty of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery with a firearm.
In their 1984 joint penalty trial, the jury, by an 11 to 1 vote, recommended a death sentence for both Puiatti and Glock.1 In 2001, Glock was executed. The sole issue here involves the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence as to Puiatti. On appeal, Puiatti's primary claim is that his counsel's pre-trial investigation was constitutionally deficient because his counsel did not discover his history of child abuse.
To evaluate this claim, we examine the pre-trial investigation by Puiatti's counsel, Garrett, to determine what steps she took to investigate and develop potential mitigation evidence. At the outset though, it is important to note that: (1) no mental health expert ever told Garrett that he or she suspected Puiatti was abused as a child; (2) in all the records trial counsel received, including school, medical, and military records, there was no indication that Puiatti was abused as a child; and (3) Puiatti and his family members never mentioned child abuse.
Trial counsel Garrett took primary responsibility for investigating Puiatti's background for mitigating evidence, and she used the assistance of an investigator, Leonard Harris. As outlined below, Garrett: (1) met with Puiatti repeatedly and instructed him to describe his background in detail; (2) met with Puiatti's family members and asked them about Puiatti and their relationships; (3) obtained records regarding Puiatti's education, military service, and medical history; and (4) retained two licensed mental health professionals to evaluate Puiatti and form their own opinions about his background and mental health.
In developing a mitigation strategy, Garrett had Puiatti write a history of his life. In that “life history,” Puiatti advised that his childhood was “pretty normal,” he “never wanted for anything,” and his parents “were pretty fair and didn't usually punish or spank [him] without reason.” Garrett could not remember what directions she gave Puiatti before he wrote his life history. However, she testified that he “absolutely would have been instructed to be truthful.”
As Garrett described it, Puiatti's life history contained various references to the ways that “Puiatti felt very indebted to [his parents'] care for him.” For example, Puiatti described his parents' efforts to obtain counseling for him after his drug addiction caused him to drop out of high school. Puiatti wrote:
In his life history, Puiatti also wrote: Garrett testified that this statement was consistent with “the way the parents and Carl both saw it, that they were loving parents that were trying to help him and that Carl ... screwed up.”
Garrett's notes indicated that she discussed with Puiatti “reasons for poss [ible] mit[igation].” Two days later, Garrett again met with Puiatti. Garrett's notes indicated that she discussed Puiatti's background at length in an attempt to develop a mitigation strategy.
Based on her talks with Puiatti and his writings, Garrett identified themes of Puiatti's life that she hoped would form a coherent mitigation strategy. Garrett made a chart of these themes, listing various events that caused Puiatti's “hopelessness,” including, inter alia, Puiatti's drug and alcohol abuse, his failed marriage, and his being on probation. Garrett noted that Puiatti had a “childlike relation[ship] to parents” and that they cared “for him more and more.”
Garrett met with many of Puiatti's family members. In 1983, Garrett spoke on the phone with Puiatti's mother, Linda Puiatti (“Mrs. Puiatti”). Garrett explained to Mrs. Puiatti mitigating and aggravating factors relevant in death penalty cases and “the value of psych[ological] evid[ence].” In response, Mrs. Puiatti told Garrett that she feared Puiatti was “losing [his] will to live” due to emotional problems and physical disabilities.
Three days later, Garrett visited the Puiatti family home. In her notes from the meeting with Mrs. Puiatti, Garrett wrote “Angela and Jimmy, when first saw [Puiatti]—Jimmy said he thought brother was crazy.” The “Angela” in her notes was Puiatti's older sister, Angela Wright, and “Jimmy” referred to Wright's former husband, James Thatcher.2
Garrett gleaned from her visit to the Puiatti family home a strong impression of how loving and supportive the Puiattis were. Garrett sent Mrs. Puiatti a follow-up letter thanking Mrs. Puiatti for her “extremely gracious hospitality.” Garrett wrote that it was infrequent that families of defendants are “as supportive as you and [Puiatti's father] have been” and that Garrett and her colleagues rarely found “such a warm welcome into such a loving home.”
Garrett separately interviewed Puiatti's father, Victor Puiatti, Sr. (“Mr. Puiatti”) “on at least a couple of occasions.” During one meeting, Garrett discussed with Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Saunders v. Stewart
- Mouzon v. United States
- Asay v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
- Dallas v. Dunn