Whitton v. State
Citation | 161 So.3d 314 |
Decision Date | 09 October 2014 |
Docket Number | Nos. SC11–2083,SC12–2522.,s. SC11–2083 |
Parties | Gary Richard WHITTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Gary Richard Whitton, Petitioner, v. Michael D. Crews, etc., Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Mark Evan Olive of the Law Offices of Mark E. Olive, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Carolyn Marie Snurkowski, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Carol Marie Dittmar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee/Respondent.
Gary Richard Whitton appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.
Whitton was convicted for the 1990 murder of James Mauldin. On direct appeal, this Court summarized the events leading to Mauldin's murder, and Whitton's subsequent arrest and conviction as follows:
and he suffered stab wounds to his shoulder, cheek, neck, scalp, and back. In addition, Mauldin sustained three fatal stab wounds to the heart. The medical examiner testified that these wounds prevented Mauldin's heart from beating properly and, consequently, caused his death. The medical examiner also testified that Mauldin had wounds to his arms and hands consistent with his attempting to defend himself. Accordingly, the medical examiner concluded that Mauldin was conscious during the attack, although a blood alcohol test indicated Mauldin's blood alcohol level was .34 at the time of death.
Whitton v. State, 649 So.2d 861, 862–64 (Fla.1994) (footnotes omitted).
Whitton raised seven issues on appeal.1 This Court did not grant relief on any of Whitton's claims and affirmed his convictions and sentences. Id. at 867.
On March 26, 1997, Whitton filed a shell motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. Whitton subsequently filed three amendments to his motion; the third and last was filed on November 1, 2004. Whitton raised twenty-nine claims. The court summarily denied eleven claims and conducted an evidentiary hearing on the remaining eighteen claims. After the evidentiary hearings held on October 31 through November 3, 2005, the court denied each of Whitton's remaining claims in a 102–page order issued on June 2, 2011.
Whitton appeals the denial of five claims, and has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising two additional claims. Because we find that Whitton has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief on any of his claims, we affirm the postconviction court's denial and deny Whitton's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In his first issue on appeal, Whitton raises several claims purported to be violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Whitton's claims appear to be a mixture of Brady, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), and improper argument claims. The theme of Whitton's claims is that, overall, the prosecution was corrupt and sought to convict him by any necessary means. In each of these claims, Whitton fails to establish each of the prongs necessary to maintain a claim. Accordingly, we find that the postconviction court properly denied these claims.
To successfully raise a Brady violation claim, Whitton must show that: (1) the evidence was favorable to him, either because it was exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State; and (3) that the suppression resulted in prejudice. Conahan v. State, 118 So.3d 718, 729 (Fla.2013) (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) ; Johnson v. State, 921 So.2d 490, 507 (Fla.2005) ; Rogers v. State, 782 So.2d 373, 378 (Fla.2001) ). “To establish the materiality element of Brady, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Calhoun v. State
...The State did not violate Giglio because, as explained above, Lieutenant Raley's trial testimony was not false.5 See Whitton v. State , 161 So. 3d 314, 322 (Fla. 2014) ("[T]here are three elements to a successful Giglio claim, [namely] that (1) the [trial] testimony was false; (2) the prose......
-
Brant v. State
...defendant to demonstrate that the deficient performance deprived the defendant of a reliable penalty phase proceeding.” Whitton v. State, 161 So.3d 314, 332 (Fla.2014) (quoting Simmons v. State, 105 So.3d 475, 503 (Fla.2012) ).Most of Brant's claims regarding the deficiencies of trial couns......
- Covington v. State
-
DiTullio v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
... ... count one and the lesser-included offense of attempted ... second-degree murder on count two. (Doc. 13-6, Ex. 5.) The ... state court sentenced DiTullio to life in prison on count one ... and 15 years in prison on count two ... ( Id ., Ex. 6.) The state appellate ... prejudicial as to vitiate the entire proceedings.” ... See, e.g. , Whitton v. State , 161 So.3d 314, ... 332 (Fla. 2014), reh'g denied (Apr. 2, 2015) ... Here, the Court finds that the Defendant “has not ... ...