Ragsdale v. State, SC00-414.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. SC00-414.,SC00-414.
• Citation: 798 So.2d 713
• Parties: Edward Eugene RAGSDALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

798 So.2d 713

Edward Eugene RAGSDALE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. SC00-414.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 18, 2001.

Mark S. Gruber, Assistant CCRC-Middle, Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel—Middle Region, Tampa, FL, for Appellant.

798 So.2d 714

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

Edward Eugene Ragsdale appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9) Fla. Const. We reverse the order denying relief and remand for a new sentencing proceeding.

The relevant facts of this crime were set forth in Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla.1998):

In 1986, Edward Eugene Ragsdale and Leon Illig were arrested for the armed robbery and first-degree murder of Ernest Mace (the victim). The victim had been badly beaten and his throat had been slit. Illig pleaded nolo contendere and received a sentence of life imprisonment. Illig invoked the Fifth Amendment when called to testify at Ragsdale's trial. Ragsdale admitted striking the victim and cutting him with a knife but asserted that Illig inflicted the fatal cut. Three individuals testified at trial that Ragsdale admitted he had committed the murder.

Ragsdale was convicted as charged and the jury recommended death by an eight-to-four vote. The trial judge followed that recommendation, finding no factors in mitigation and three factors in aggravation: (1) that the murder was committed while Ragsdale was on parole (under sentence of imprisonment); (2) that the murder was committed during a robbery and for monetary gain; and (3) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. The facts of the crimes are set forth in more detail in Ragsdale v. State, 609 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1992).

In Ragsdale's first 3.850 collateral appeal, we affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's order summarily denying relief. See Ragsdale, 720 So.2d at 208. Specifically, we found:

With regard to the penalty phase, however, we conclude that an evidentiary hearing was required. During the penalty phase, defense counsel put on only one witness, Ragsdale's brother, who provided minimal evidence in mitigation. That witness had also testified on behalf of the State during the guilt phase. Additionally, the witness, when cross-examined by the State during the penalty phase, testified that it did not surprise him that his brother committed the murder and he provided other derogatory information about Ragsdale.

In Ragsdale's rule 3.850 motion, he states that testimony was available to show that Ragsdale's life was marked by poverty and deprivation and that he suffered from a lifetime of drug and alcohol addiction, yet no witnesses were called by the defense to present this testimony. More importantly, he contends that defense counsel never had him examined by a competent mental health expert for purposes of presenting mitigation. He asserts that he has now been examined by a mental health expert who has found that he suffers from organic brain damage; is mentally retarded; has severe language and listening comprehension difficulties; and has difficulties with concentration, attention, and mental flexibility. Additionally, he alleges the evidence will show that his ability to reason and exhibit appropriate judgment, as well as determine and assess the long-term consequences of his actions, is also substantially impaired.

. . . .

We conclude that Ragsdale has stated sufficient allegations of mitigation that

798 So.2d 715

are not conclusively refuted by the record to warrant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel was ineffective in failing to properly investigate and present this evidence in mitigation.

Ragsdale, 720 So.2d at 208. Accordingly, we directed that the circuit court "hold ... an evidentiary hearing on the contentions that Ragsdale's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly investigate and present evidence in mitigation and that Ragsdale was deprived of an effective mental health expert." Id. at 209. The circuit court conducted the evidentiary hearing and denied Ragsdale's 3.850 motion.

This appeal follows, in which Ragsdale claims that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase; and (2) the circuit court committed reversible errors in conducting the evidentiary hearing. As we find Ragsdale's trial counsel ineffective for his failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of Ragsdale's trial, we do not address the errors allegedly committed by the circuit court in conducting the evidentiary hearing.

The United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), set forth the standards to be applied by courts in analyzing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel:

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.

See also Cherry v. State, 781 So.2d 1040, 1048 (Fla.2000); State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342, 349 (Fla.2000); Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 219 (Fla.1998).

As to the first prong of the Strickland test, the Supreme Court stated that "the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" based on "prevailing professional norms." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Under the second prong of the test, "[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The Supreme Court defined "reasonable probability" as "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. With respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact and review, as questions of mixed law and fact, whether counsel was ineffective and whether the defendant was prejudiced by any ineffective assistance of counsel. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1999).

Specifically, Ragsdale argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence concerning Ragsdale's abusive childhood environment, drug and alcohol abuse, history of head traumas, and mental mitigation. Ragsdale also claims that his counsel was ineffective in presenting Terry Ragsdale, Ragsdale's brother, as a mitigation witness. The circuit court denied relief on these claims, and the entirety of its order states:

798 So.2d 716

This cause coming on to be heard on the Order of the Florida Supreme Court directing this court to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding penalty phase issues raised by EDWARD EUGENE RAGSDALE, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to properly investigate and present evidence in mitigation and that he was deprived of an effective mental health expert.

Pursuant to this directive, this court has received evidence and heard argument of counsel. This Court recommends to the Supreme Court that petitioner's Motion for Post Conviction Relief be denied. This Court finds that EDWARD EUGENE RAGDALE'S trial counsel did not abuse his duties in any fashion, nor was his representation inadequate, nor did it cause prejudice to EDWARD EUGENE RAGSDALE which could have been avoided by any other type of representation. The mitigating evidence alluded to by EDWARD EUGENE RAGSDALE was not available to his trial counsel, and

...