Rolling v. State, SC01-625.
Decision Date | 27 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. SC01-625.,SC01-625. |
Parties | Danny Harold ROLLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Baya Harrison, III, Monticello, FL, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee.
Danny Harold Rolling, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's order denying Rolling postconviction relief.
Rolling was charged with five counts of first-degree murder, three counts of sexual battery, and three counts of armed burglary of a dwelling with a battery, which occurred in Gainesville during August of 1990. This Court previously summarized the facts surrounding these crimes on direct appeal. See Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278, 281-82 (Fla.1997)
.
On June 9, 1992, Rolling entered a plea of not guilty on all counts. Subsequently, on February 15, 1994, the day set for trial, Rolling changed his plea to guilty on all counts. The trial court accepted Rolling's plea after reviewing with him the factual basis for it and adjudicated him guilty on all counts. A penalty phase proceeding was held, and the jury recommended that Rolling be sentenced to death for each murder by a vote of twelve to zero. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Rolling to death for each homicide. We affirmed Rolling's sentences on direct appeal. See id. at 297. The United States Supreme Court denied Rolling's petition for writ of certiorari on November 17, 1997. See Rolling v. Florida, 522 U.S. 984, 118 S.Ct. 448, 139 L.Ed.2d 383 (1997).
Rolling filed his original 3.850 motion in November of 1998. In April of 1999, Rolling filed an amended 3.850 motion asserting two claims.1 Following a Huff2 hearing, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on July 11-12 and July 15, 2000. Thereafter, the trial court entered a comprehensive, thirty-eight page order denying relief. This appeal follows.
On appeal, Rolling argues that the trial court erred in denying his claim alleging trial counsel were ineffective for failing to timely seek and procure a change of venue.3 Rolling's argument that trial counsel were ineffective is essentially twofold. First, Rolling argues that trial counsel were ineffective for waiting until jury selection was underway to move for a change of venue, rather than seeking a venue change during the three years preceding trial. Second, Rolling argues that even after they belatedly filed a motion for change of venue, trial counsel failed to adequately support the motion and argue in favor of a venue change. Rolling contends that had trial counsel timely sought and sufficiently supported the motion, the trial court would have been required to grant a change of venue.
On direct appeal, this Court thoroughly addressed the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying Rolling's motion for change of venue, which was ultimately filed by trial counsel.4 See Rolling, 695 So.2d at 283-88
. In finding that the trial court did not err in denying Rolling's motion for change of venue, we emphasized the meticulous jury selection procedure and screening process undertaken by the trial court. Moreover, we expressly rejected Rolling's argument that the pretrial publicity presumptively prejudiced the entire Alachua County community against him, as well as his claim of actual prejudice. See id. at 285-88. In sum, we concluded:
[B]ecause we find that the trial court's system was an effective one which produced an impartial jury, we affirm the trial court's denial of Rolling's motion for a change of venue. Neither the pretrial publicity in this case nor the lengthy jury selection process evidenced a community bias so pervasive as to make it impossible, under any circumstances, to seat an impartial jury in Gainesville.
This Court has repeatedly recognized that claims which were raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred in postconviction proceedings. See, e.g., Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 1995)
. At the same time, we have also recognized that a claim of trial court error and a claim of ineffectiveness may arise from the same underlying facts, but the claims themselves are distinct and—of necessity —have different remedies. See Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55, 63 (Fla.2001). Notwithstanding this distinction, based on the record in this case and our previous opinion thoroughly treating the venue issue and concluding that it was without merit, we find Rolling's claim is procedurally barred.
However, even if Rolling's claim were not barred, we would find it to be without merit.5 In order to prove an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must establish two elements:
104 S.Ct. 2052. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present a mixed question of law and fact subject to plenary review based on the Strickland test. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1033 (Fla.1999). This requires an independent review of the trial court's legal conclusions, while giving deference to the trial court's factual findings. See id.
In denying relief, the trial court determined that Rolling had failed to satisfy either prong under Strickland. After thoroughly discussing the case history and postconviction proceedings, the trial court concluded as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnes v. Jones
...abandons the claims which were raised in his original Rule 3.850 motion but not asserted in his amended motion. See Rolling v. State, 825 So. 2d 293, 295 n.1 (Fla. 2002); Rincon v. State, 996 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Therefore, the claim is deemed unexhausted for federal habeas purpo......
-
Chandler v. Crosby
...a matter of trial strategy by counsel, and therefore not generally an issue to be second-guessed on collateral review." Rolling v. State, 825 So.2d 293, 298 (Fla. 2002). Neither Chandler nor his trial counsel wanted the jury to be picked from the Tampa Bay area, which was where the crimes w......
-
Dufour v. State
...the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time." Rolling v. State, 825 So.2d 293, 298 (Fla.2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689,104 S.Ct. 2052). This Court has repeatedly held that evidence of voluntary intoxicatio......
-
Ray v. State
...tried in another county. There must be a weighing of the odds.”Faraga v. State, 514 So.2d 295, 307 (Miss.1987). See also Rolling v. State, 825 So.2d 293, 298 (Fla.2002) (“The decision of whether to seek a change of venue is usually considered a matter of trial strategy by counsel, and there......