Rodriguez v. State, SC00-99.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 919 So.2d 1252 |
| Docket Number | No. SC01-2864.,No. SC00-99.,SC00-99.,SC01-2864. |
| Parties | Juan David RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Juan David Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., etc., Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2005 |
Page 1252
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Juan David Rodriguez, Petitioner,
v.
James V. Crosby, Jr., etc., Respondent.
Page 1253
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1254
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1255
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1256
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1257
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1258
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1259
Neal A. Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel — South, Rachel L. Day and Lucrecia R. Diaz, Assistants CCRC-South, Fort Lauderdale, FL, and Patricia A. Hogan, North Miami, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Lisa A. Rodriguez and Sandra S. Jaggard, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Juan David Rodriguez, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Rodriguez 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 explained below, we affirm the trial court's denial of postconviction relief and deny habeas relief.
Rodriguez was charged and convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit a felony, attempted armed robbery, armed burglary with an assault, aggravated assault, and attempted first-degree murder. The charges arose from a shooting that occurred on May 13, 1988, at a shopping center and an attempted home invasion robbery that occurred the following day. The facts of this case are fully discussed in this Court's opinion on direct appeal. See Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493, 495-97 (Fla.1992). We briefly summarize them here for purposes of the claims raised in this proceeding.
In an effort to discharge a debt that he owed, Rodriguez led Ramon Fernandez and Carlos "Tata" Sponsa to an auto parts store located at a shopping center. Rodriguez accosted the victim Abelardo Saladrigas, the owner of the store, in the parking lot of the shopping center. Rodriguez chased the victim around the lot, shot him four times, and took his watch and a briefcase containing cash and a revolver. Id. at 495-96. Saladrigas later died at the hospital. Rodriguez fled the scene with Fernandez and Tata in a blue Mazda. Several people witnessed the crime.
The next day, Rodriguez, Fernandez, Tata, and several other men went to a residence intending to stage a home invasion robbery. While en route to the residence, Rodriguez purportedly told one of the men, Sergio Valdez, that he "had done a job" at an auto parts store the previous day. The home invasion was foiled when the resident produced a gun and began firing. As the men fled, Fernandez
Page 1260
dropped the revolver that had been stolen from the murder victim the previous day.
Three weeks after the attempted home invasion, Fernandez was arrested. He confessed his involvement in the crimes and informed the police of Rodriguez's role in the shooting at the auto parts store. Ultimately, Rodriguez was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the other offenses arising from these events.
Rodriguez was found guilty of all charges, and a unanimous jury recommended that Rodriguez be sentenced to death for the murder of Saladrigas. The trial court followed the recommendation, and found three aggravating factors: a prior conviction of violent felony; the murder was committed during a robbery and for financial gain; and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). In addition, the trial court found that Rodriguez's good marriage and family life constituted one nonstatutory mitigating factor.
On direct appeal, Rodriguez raised multiple claims relating to both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial.1 This Court did not find a reversible error on any of Rodriguez's claims and affirmed both his convictions and sentences, including the death sentence. Id. at 501.
In September 1994, Rodriguez filed his first motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He filed amended motions in October 1995, April 1997, and July 1997. Rodriguez based each amendment on compliance with his public records requests. At a Huff2 hearing, the defense attempted to file a fourth amended motion, but the trial court refused to recognize this amendment and proceeded on the claims raised in the third amended motion. After argument, the trial court ruled that an evidentiary hearing would be conducted on two claims of the thirty raised in Rodriguez's motion.3
Page 1261
The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claims three and eight, regarding the adequacy of Rodriguez's mental health evaluation and counsel's investigation of possible mitigating evidence.
At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Rodriguez's trial counsel, the mental health expert who evaluated Rodriguez for trial, and the mental health expert who evaluated Rodriguez for his postconviction claims. After the hearing, the trial court found no merit to Rodriguez's mental health, mitigation, and other claims, and denied postconviction relief.
Upon appeal to this Court, Rodriguez raised twelve issues, including numerous subissues. We concluded that Rodriguez's allegation relating to the preparation of his sentencing order, which Rodriguez had attempted to raise in the fourth amended motion, warranted an evidentiary hearing. Thus, we temporarily relinquished jurisdiction for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue and to make additional findings and conclusions. The trial court denied Rodriguez relief on the sentencing order claim and he appealed to this Court. During the pendency of his appeal, Rodriguez also moved for this Court to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court so that he may file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 for a determination of mental retardation.4 We have issued an order denying the motion, but without prejudice to Rodriguez's
Page 1262
right to file a rule 3.203 motion upon disposition of his postconviction appeal. See Rodriguez v. State, No. SC00-99, 919 So.2d 1252, 2005 WL 1243475 (Fla. order filed May 26, 2005).
In a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed as an original pleading in this Court, Rodriguez raises several claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He also questions this Court's harmless error analysis on direct appeal and asks this Court to revisit the constitutionality of his indictment in light of the subsequent decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).
On appeal, Rodriguez raises twelve distinct issues and several subissues regarding the trial court's original denial of postconviction relief. Rodriguez contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying a new penalty phase where the evidentiary hearing showed that trial counsel failed to investigate and present mental health mitigation and the mental health expert rendered inadequate mental health assistance; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to prepare the sentencing order; (3) the trial court erred in summarily denying his claims of a Brady5 violation based on the State's failure to disclose information concerning Tata, an Ake6 violation based on failure to provide him with an adequate mental health evaluation, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's failure to investigate or prepare for trial, to request a severance of offenses, and to object to various other errors at trial; (4) Rodriguez was denied effective assistance of counsel due to the failure of various agencies to comply with his public records requests; (5) the trial judge displayed judicial bias at trial and during the postconviction proceedings; (6) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to jury instructions regarding the aggravating circumstances, burden shifting, the jury's responsibility for sentencing, and an automatic aggravating circumstance; (7) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the closing argument; (8) the Florida death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (9) an incomplete record on direct appeal led to ineffective assistance of counsel; (10) the Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-3.5(d)(4) prohibition on communication with jurors restricts Rodriguez's access to the courts; (11) impermissible victim impact was considered in Rodriguez's sentencing; and (12) Rodriguez did not receive a fundamentally fair trial because of cumulative error.
Rodriguez raises three additional claims relating to the proceedings during the relinquishment of jurisdiction. He asserts that (13) the trial judge should have disqualified himself from presiding over Rodriguez's original postconviction proceedings; (14) he was not afforded a full and fair hearing on the sentencing order issue during relinquishment of jurisdiction; and (15) the trial court erred in denying him relief on the merits of the sentencing order issue after the evidentiary hearing. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief on each of Rodriguez's claims.7
Page 1263
Rodriguez argues the trial court erred in denying him a new penalty phase after testimony at the evidentiary hearing allegedly established trial counsel's failure to promptly and fully investigate mental health mitigation that would have affected the jury's decision. Moreover, Rodriguez claims the expert appointed to examine him, Dr. Leonard Haber, rendered inadequate assistance which contributed to trial counsel's ineffectiveness.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mashburn v. Sec'y, Case No.: 4:12cv289/RS/EMT
...could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack."); see also Rodriquez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1262 n.7 (Fla. 2005) (issues were procedurally barred because they should have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal). Petitioner ma......
-
Barnes v. Jones, Case No.: 3:14cv101/LAC/EMT
...process claim in the state courts would be futile, because it would be procedurally barred under Florida law. See Rodriquez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1262 n.7 (Fla. 2005) (holding that issues were procedurally barred because they should have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal); Sm......
-
State v. Maestas, 20080508
...mental retardation is neither equivalent to an element of a crime nor a fact that increases the available penalty); Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1267 (Fla. 2005) (rejecting the argument that a state statute is unconstitutional for permitting a judge to determine whether the defendan......
-
Reynolds v. State, SC17–793
...2008) ; Barnhill v. State , 971 So.2d 106, 117 (Fla. 2007) ; Miller v. State , 926 So.2d 1243, 1257 (Fla. 2006) ; Rodriguez v. State , 919 So.2d 1252, 1280 (Fla. 2005) ; Globe v. State , 877 So.2d 663, 673–74 (Fla. 2004) ; Griffin v. State , 866 So.2d 1, 14 (Fla. 2003).13 Therefore, Romano ......
-
Post-conviction relief
...in an issue, the fact that defense counsel could not depose them does not result in prejudice or an unfair hearing. Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2006) First District Court of Appeal Whether or not the appeal has a high probability of success is the incorrect standard governing ......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...before a different judge regarding the documents, the judge should recuse himself from all further proceedings.) Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2006) First District Court of Appeal Although the better practice is to excuse the jury before admonishing an attorney in open court, re......
-
MISSING THE MISJOINDER MARK: IMPROVING CRIMINAL JOINDER OF OFFENSES IN CAPITAL-SENTENCING JURISDICTIONS.
...But this language difference seems to not prevent the joinder of offenses of differing levels of punishment. See Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1272 (Fla. 2005) (finding that offenses were properly joined and even if defendant would have filed motion to sever, the motion would have mo......
-
Charging a crime, arraignment and pleas
...in the two crimes were the same, and the crimes were part of a common scheme to get money to pay a bondsman. Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2006) First District Court of Appeal The state may substantively amend an information during trial, unless there is a showing of prejudice t......