Rhodes v. State

• Decision Date: 13 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. SC04-31.,SC04-31.
• Citation: 986 So.2d 501
• Parties: Richard W. RHODES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

986 So.2d 501

Richard W. RHODES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC04-31.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 2008.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 3, 2008.

Terri L. Backhus of Backhus and Izakowitz, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Robert J. Landry and Katherine V. Blanco, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Rhodes was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. We affirmed his conviction, see Rhodes v. State, 547 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1989), and later his sentence, see Rhodes v. State, 638 So.2d 920 (Fla.1994). He now appeals an order of the circuit court denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the circuit court's order denying the motion on all issues.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rhodes was convicted of first-degree murder for the manual-strangulation death of a woman, later identified as Karen Nieradka. The facts of the crime, as we have previously described them, are briefly summarized here.¹ Nieradka's decomposing body was found on March 24, 1984, in debris being used to construct a berm in St. Petersburg. The debris came from a hotel in Clearwater, which had been demolished nine days earlier. The cause of death was determined to be manual strangulation, causing the hyoid bone in Nieradka's neck to break. Although the only clothing found on her body was a brassiere around her neck, no physical evidence of sexual battery was found.

On March 2, 1984, the Florida Highway Patrol stopped Rhodes in Hernando County; he was driving a car registered to the victim. After the body was identified, Rhodes was questioned and ultimately arrested for the murder. During the various interviews, Rhodes gave different and sometimes conflicting statements, ultimately claiming that the victim died accidentally when she fell from the third floor of the Sunset Hotel.

During the original trial, three of Rhodes's former cellmates at the Pinellas County Jail testified that Rhodes admitted killing the victim. The jury found Rhodes guilty of first-degree murder and recommended that he be sentenced to death. The trial judge followed the recommendation. On appeal, we affirmed the conviction. However, because of various penalty phase errors, we vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing. Rhodes v. State, 547 So.2d at 1201.

On remand, a newly empaneled jury recommended death by a vote of ten to two. The trial court followed the jury recommendation. In aggravation, the sentencing judge found that: (1) Rhodes committed the murder while on parole; (2) Rhodes was previously convicted of a violent felony; and (3) Rhodes committed the murder while committing an attempted sexual battery. In mitigation, he found: (1) Rhodes's age of thirty at the time of offense; and (2) Rhodes's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. The judge refused to find that at the time of the murder Rhodes was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance or that he was under extreme duress due to alcohol consumption and his family history. However, he did find as nonstatutory mitigation that: (1) as a child, Rhodes was abandoned by his parents; and (2) Rhodes never experienced a normal family life because as a child he was never placed in a social environment that could address his needs and he spent most of his life in state hospitals and prisons.

Rhodes appealed his resentencing, raising eight issues.² We affirmed the sentence but agreed that the March 20, 1992 conviction for first-degree murder was extraneous in light of our affirmance of Rhodes's 1985 conviction; we vacated the March 1992 conviction. Rhodes, 638 So.2d at 927.

Rhodes filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised several claims and subclaims.³ The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on some of the issues, but subsequently denied relief on all claims.

II. ANALYSIS

Rhodes raises four claims on appeal: (A) that the State withheld material and exculpatory evidence and knowingly presented false or misleading evidence; (B) that resentencing counsel was ineffective in his investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence; (C) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to depose the State's DNA expert; and (D) that the trial court erred in summarily denying several of his postconviction claims. We address each in turn.

A. BRADY/GIGLIO VIOLATIONS

Rhodes first contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). His claims stem from hair evidence examined by, and testimony taken from, FBI Agent Michael Malone. Rhodes first contends that the trial court erred in denying his claim that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose material exculpatory hair evidence. He also argues that the State violated Giglio by knowingly presenting Agent Malone's testimony when it was in fact false. We discuss each claim in turn.

1. The Brady Claim

Rhodes contends that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose that Agent Malone falsely testified about exculpatory hair evidence found in the victim's hand. Agent Malone had analyzed the hairs found on various items of evidence and compared them to known hair samples taken from Rhodes and the victim. He testified that all of the unknown hairs given to him from the victim, or from the area where the victim was found, microscopically matched the victim's hair or were hairs that were "basically no good." Agent Malone explained that the hairs that were "no good" were just hair fragments that could not be identified and therefore could not be linked to anyone. Agent Malone testified that "the bottom line as far as the hair from the victim or area where she was found is that there were no foreign hairs at all." A foreign hair was identified as "a hair that originates from somebody else besides the victim."

On cross-examination, defense counsel highlighted the insignificance of Agent Malone's testimony, stating "Mr. Malone, is the bottom line you can't help us out in this case at all?" Agent Malone answered, "Well, there were no other hairs except hairs of the victim that I could come up with, yes. That's about it."

About sixteen years later, Agent Malone admitted that he falsely testified at trial that the hair evidence in the victim's left hand was hers. Agent Malone was called to testify at Rhodes's postconviction evidentiary hearing. On the morning he was scheduled to testify, Agent Malone admitted, after checking his handwritten bench notes, that the hair in the victim's left hand, which he originally identified as belonging to the victim, was in fact not suitable for testing. Rhodes argues that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had this evidence been disclosed to him. See Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S.Ct. 763; Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194.

In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) the evidence was favorable to the defendant, either because it was exculpatory or because it was impeaching; (2) it was suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) it was material, thereby causing prejudice to the defendant. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999).

Agent Malone's trial testimony concerning the hair in the victim's left hand was admittedly false. The trial court denied the claim, however, because the false testimony was neither withheld, favorable to the accused, nor prejudicial. Giving deference to the trial court on questions of fact, we review de novo the application of the law, and independently review the cumulative effect of the suppressed evidence. See Green v. State, 975 So.2d 1090, 1101-1102 (Fla.2008) (citing Mordenti v. State, 894 So.2d 161, 169 (Fla.2004); Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 913 (Fla.2000)).

We agree with the trial court that Agent Malone's testimony was not favorable to Rhodes. Favorable evidence encompasses both exculpatory evidence and evidence that impeaches the testimony of a witness when the reliability or credibility of that witness may determine guilt or innocence. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153, 92 S.Ct. 763. Agent Malone testified, both at the original trial and the evidentiary hearing, that he was unable to identify any hairs other than those belonging to the victim. The only difference between his original testimony and his postconviction testimony was that a hair located in the victim's left hand was found not suitable for testing. Notwithstanding that error, Agent Malone's ultimate conclusion—that all of the identifiable hairs recovered from the victim's body, or the immediately surrounding area, belonged to the victim—remained unchanged. Because all of the identifiable hairs belonged to the victim, the hair evidence neither inculpated nor exculpated Rhodes. The change in Agent Malone's testimony could not be used to impeach Malone or exonerate Rhodes and therefore does not warrant relief under Brady.

Even assuming that the evidence was favorable, however, the hair evidence was neither suppressed nor prejudicial. The Brady rule only applies to ...