Barwick v. State
88 So. 3d 85
Fla.2011Background
- Barwick indicted in 1986 for first‑degree murder, armed burglary, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery; convicted by jury.
- Direct appeal reversed due to jury selection error; retried, convicted again, and sentenced to death on a unanimous penalty verdict.
- Barwick filed 3.851 postconviction motion; Huff hearing; evidentiary hearing in 2006; final order denied in 2007.
- Barwick raised multiple ineffective‑assistance claims, Brady/Giglio/prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative error in postconviction; trial/counsel claims adjudicated on the merits.
- Barwick filed a habeas petition raising nine issues; Florida Supreme Court affirmed circuit court and denied habeas relief.
- Court’s holding: denial of postconviction relief and habeas petition affirmed; Roper‑based claims procedurally barred and others meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (guilt/penalty) standard and prejudice | Barwick identifies multiple deficiencies (jury-qualification issues, Capers cross, mitigation, objections) | Counsel's performance within reasonable professional standards; no prejudice shown | Denied; claims not showing prejudice or procedurally barred |
| Brady, Giglio, and prosecutorial misconduct claims | State suppressed or used false testimony; Capers testimony misleading | No Brady/Giglio violation; no prejudice from asserted misconduct | Denied; no material suppression or prejudice shown |
| Cumulative error claim | Multiple errors collectively violated fairness of trial | Individual errors lack merit; cumulative error fails | Denied; no fundamental unfairness demonstrated |
| Roper v. Simmons claims in habeas petition | Execution unconstitutional due to brain damage/age; use of prior juvenile felony as aggravator | Procedurally barred; age at time of crime was 19.5; Roper not extended | Denied; procedurally barred and meritless on the merits |
| Remand for resentencing/automatic aggravator challenges | Court should remand due to potential improper CCP aggravator | Claims waived or foreclosed; aggravator rulings upheld | Denied; remand not required; aggravator law previously rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrell v. State, 29 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2010) (standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1990) (habeas not for issues raised elsewhere; procedural bar guidance)
- Floyd v. State, 18 So.3d 432 (Fla. 2009) (waiver and procedural bar on collateral review claims)
- Dufour v. State, 905 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2005) (analyzes aggravating circumstances and automaticity issues)