Waterhouse v. State

• Decision Date: 31 May 2001
• Docket Number: No. SC95103.,SC95103.
• Citation: 792 So.2d 1176
• Parties: Robert Brian WATERHOUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

792 So.2d 1176

Robert Brian WATERHOUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC95103.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 31, 2001.

Rehearing Denied August 23, 2001.

John W. Moser, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Joseph T. Hobson, Assistant CCRC, Jack Crooks, Assistant CCRC and Eric Pinkard, Assistant CCRC, Office of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle, Tampa, FL, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Candance M. Sabella, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Brian Waterhouse appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.¹ We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the trial court's order denying postconviction relief.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 1980, Waterhouse was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of Deborah Kammerer.² The underlying facts and the evidence presented at trial are set forth in great detail in Waterhouse v. State, 429 So.2d 301 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 415, 78 L.Ed.2d 352 (1983), wherein we affirmed both his conviction and sentence.

Thereafter, Waterhouse filed his first motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 in the trial court, along with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. The lower court denied the motion. This Court combined the appeal from the denial of the 3.850 motion and the habeas corpus petition. Reasoning that the trial court erred in its failure to instruct upon, and allow the jury to consider, evidence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances,³ we vacated the death sentence, and remanded to the trial court for a new penalty phase. See Waterhouse v. State, 522 So.2d 341, 344 (Fla.),

cert. denied, 488 U.S. 846, 109 S.Ct. 123, 102 L.Ed.2d 97 (1988).

At this second penalty phase, the jury once again recommended,⁴ and the circuit court imposed, the death penalty.⁵ Waterhouse then filed a direct appeal of the newly imposed death sentence.⁶ We again affirmed the imposition of the death penalty. See Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1992),

cert. denied, 506 U.S. 957, 113 S.Ct. 418, 121 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992).⁷

In November 1994, Waterhouse filed a 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, his first 3.850 motion after the second penalty phase proceeding. On January 22, 1998, after conducting a Huff⁸ hearing, the trial court summarily denied all of the claims presented in Waterhouse's 3.850 motion. Waterhouse now appeals the denial of seven of those claims.⁹

II. ANALYSIS

At the outset, we dispose of several claims because they are either procedurally barred, facially or legally insufficient, or clearly without merit as a matter of law.¹⁰ We now turn to address the remainder of the claims.

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate two elements:

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.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998)

. The Strickland Court added that in establishing prejudice:

The 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Additionally, and because the Strickland standard requires establishment of both prongs, when a defendant fails to make a showing as to one prong, it is not necessary to delve into whether he has made a showing as to the other prong. See 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ("[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one."); see also Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 518 n. 19 (Fla.1999)

(finding no need to address prejudice prong where defendant failed to establish deficient performance prong); Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 1989) (noting that where defendant fails to establish prejudice prong court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient).

1. Failure to Investigate and Prepare Case

This claim was presented below only as a general ineffective assistance of counsel claim without any supporting facts. In fact, Waterhouse's initial brief to this Court candidly admits the omission.¹¹ Because a defendant seeking collateral relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel bears the responsibility of alleging specific facts which demonstrate a deficiency in performance which prejudiced the defendant, see Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla.1995),

and because the defendant in this case failed to include factual allegations in support of this claim, the trial court correctly determined that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted because the claim was facially insufficient.

Notwithstanding this finding, the factual allegations which were incorporated into the appellant's brief submitted to the Court would not have warranted an evidentiary hearing had they been included in the 3.850 motion. Specifically, Waterhouse now alleges that trial counsel failed to locate the following witnesses: (1) David Van Buren, (2) Randy Winstead, (3) a woman whom he only knew by first name, and (4) a man who worked with the defendant. Despite Waterhouse's claim to the contrary, it is abundantly clear that Waterhouse sought these witnesses in an effort to further his relentless quest to relitigate guilt issues. Waterhouse specifically asserts that David Van Buren and Randy Winstead would have testified that on two separate and unrelated occasions they entered the defendant's vehicle while bleeding due to cuts and being involved in fights, thereby providing an unincriminating reason for the blood that was found in Waterhouse's vehicle. Evidence that the blood found in the defendant's car came from another source is clearly a matter relating to the defendant's guilt. Moreover, David Van Buren was actually presented as a witness for the State, and was cross-examined by defense counsel regarding the cut on his leg which caused him to bleed inside the defendant's car. Therefore, as the claim pertains to Van Buren, it is clearly refuted by the record. As to the other witnesses, while Waterhouse does not specifically identify the woman referred to or what evidence she would have provided, he does allege that a man who worked with him would have provided him with an alibi. Clearly, these witnesses would have all testified with regard to guilt phase issues which were not subject to consideration during the proceedings directed only to penalty. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing on this claim would have been properly denied even if Waterhouse had included in the 3.850 motion the factual allegations he incorporated into his brief to the Court.

2. Failure to Present Mitigating Evidence/Failure to Obtain a Mental Health Professional Who Would Conduct a Competent Evaluation

Waterhouse next maintains that his defense attorney was ineffective in failing to bring forth mitigating evidence and in failing to retain a mental health expert who would have conducted a competent evaluation. It is necessary to understand, however, that it was Waterhouse himself who elected not to present mitigating evidence and who refused to meet with the mental health expert. We noted the same in our opinion on direct appeal from the resentencing:

Although we later vacated Waterhouse's death sentence in order to allow him to present nonstatutory mitigating evidence, Waterhouse refused to allow the presentation of mitigation evidence at resentencing. Thus, this case stands in the same posture as it stood on direct appeal when the death sentence was upheld.

Waterhouse, 596 So.2d at 1018 n. 6.

In Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.1993), quoted with approval in Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 199 (Fla.1997),

we outlined the procedure which must be followed when a defendant waives the presentation of mitigating evidence. The procedure was detailed as follows:

Counsel must inform the court on the record of the defendant's decision. Counsel must indicate whether, based on his investigation, he reasonably believes there to be mitigating evidence that could be presented and what that evidence would be. The court should then require the defendant to confirm on the record that his counsel has discussed these matters with him, and despite counsel's recommendation, he wishes to waive presentation of penalty phase evidence.

Koon, 619 So.2d at 250. The underlying purpose for this framework is to protect against "the problems inherent in a trial record that does not adequately reflect a defendant's waiver of his right to present any mitigating evidence." Id. Although Koon is technically inapplicable to this case because the penalty phase proceedings below occurred some three years prior to the Koon decision becoming final, see Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 329 (Fla. 1995)

(noting that ruling in Koon was prospective); Elam v. State, 636 So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla.1994)(same), it should be noted that a review of the record in this case...