Reed v. State
Citation | 875 So.2d 415 |
Decision Date | 15 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. SC03-558., No. SC02-2191 |
Parties | Grover REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Grover Reed, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., etc., Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Christopher J. Anderson, Atlantic Beach, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
Grover Reed appeals an order of the circuit court denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitions the 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 the circuit court's order and deny the petition.
On direct appeal, this Court summarized the underlying facts of Reed's crimes as follows:
Reed v. State, 560 So.2d 203, 204-05 (Fla. 1990). On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Reed's convictions and death sentence, striking two aggravating circumstances, cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP) and prior violent felony convictions, but holding that the elimination of those aggravating circumstances would not have affected Reed's sentence because there remained four aggravating circumstances balanced against a total absence of mitigating circumstances. Id. at 207.
In 1992, Reed filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which the circuit court summarily denied. On appeal, this Court remanded for the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Reed's ineffective assistance of counsel claims1 and affirmed the denial of all other claims. See Reed v. State, 640 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1994). Thereafter, various administrative and practical matters appear to have delayed the proceedings. However, in 1996, Reed filed an amended motion, the State responded, and the circuit court eventually held a Huff2 hearing in August 2001 and an evidentiary hearing on February 19-22, 2002. After the Huff hearing, the circuit court summarily denied four of Reed's ineffective assistance claims3 and denied all other claims after the evidentiary hearing.4 Reed now appeals the circuit court's denial of twelve of his postconviction claims and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Reed's first claim is that the circuit court erred in summarily denying his claim of ineffective assistance regarding his trial counsel's failure to object to peremptory strikes of several African-American jurors by the State. As this Court noted on direct appeal:
After listening to the prosecutor's explanation for striking the black jurors, the following discussion ensued:
Reed, 560 So.2d at 205. Reed argues that, after the prosecutor gave nonracially prejudicial reasons for the strikes, his trial counsel rendered deficient performance by not following up and pointing out that the prosecutor's reasons were illogical. However, it is clear from the above summary of these proceedings that trial counsel objected to the strikes, and the trial court took the objection into consideration. Although Reed alleges his counsel did not make a strong enough argument that the jurors were challenged because of their race, the trial court apparently assumed arguendo that that a prima facie showing had been made and nonetheless found the prosecutor's reasons sufficient. Furthermore, Reed raised the issue on direct appeal, arguing the prosecutor's reasons did not meet the race-neutral test mandated in Neil. Reed's brief to this Court challenged the validity of each of the specific reasons given by the prosecutor, and this Court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reed's motion for mistrial. Thus, this issue has been litigated and was properly found to be procedurally barred, "even if couched in ineffective assistance language." Johnson v. Singletary, 695 So.2d 263, 265 (Fla.1996).
Reed's second claim is that the circuit court erred in finding no ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his trial counsel's failure to retain a hair expert. With regard to this and all other ineffective assistance claims, the test to be applied by the circuit court is two-pronged: the defendant must show both that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Additionally, this Court's standard of review is two-pronged: (1) this Court must defer to the circuit court's findings on factual issues so long as competent, substantial evidence supports them; but (2) must review de novo ultimate conclusions on the deficiency and prejudice prongs. See Stephens v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ingram v. Stewart
... ... 2 The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ("ACCA") on direct appeal described the killing and the surrounding circumstances as follows: The state's evidence showed the following: On July 31, 1993, Ingram, along with Anthony Boyd, Moneek Marcell Ackles, and Dwinaune Quintay Cox, kidnapped ... ineffective assistance claim does not arise from the failure to present mitigation evidence where that evidence presents a double-edged sword." Reed v ... State , 875 So. 2d 415, 437 (Fla. 2004).'" Washington v ... State , 95 So. 3d 26, 53 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)." (C. 970-74.) Additionally, this ... ...
-
Evans v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
... ... During the penalty phase of Evans's trial, the state presented evidence of his prior [703 F.3d 1319] convictions, and Evans's counsel presented evidence to portray his client in a positive light. The ... Reed v. State , 875 So.2d 415, 437 (Fla.2004). While the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing established that Evans suffered from mental health ... ...
-
Woodward v. State
... ... State , 95 So. 3d 26, 53 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Reed v. State , 875 So. 2d 415, 437 (Fla. 2004)). For these reasons, summary dismissal of this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was proper. Page 168 4. Finally, Woodward alleged in his petition that his counsel should have presented evidence at the sentencing hearing to rebut some of the ... ...
-
Overton v. Jones
... ... The matter before the Court is Mr. Overton's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Petition) filed November 8, 2013 [DE 8]. The State filed its Response. [DE 11]. Mr. Overton filed a Reply. [DE 12]. This matter has been ... Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 42930 (Fla.2004) (holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi ... ...