Borghi v. Florida Attorney General
2:15-cv-00200
M.D. Fla.Jun 19, 2017Background
- In 2003 Borghi pled no contest to vehicular homicide, received 30 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ probation.
- Weeks after release on probation he was arrested in Miami‑Dade for discharging a firearm while intoxicated and later convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon.
- The State filed probation‑violation (VOP) charges based on the new arrests/conviction; Borghi admitted the VOP and was sentenced to 13 years, consecutive to his Miami‑Dade sentence.
- Borghi pursued state postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, claiming his VOP counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject an 11‑year plea and failing to seek a concurrent sentence.
- The state postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing (counsel did not testify), rejected Borghi’s credibility, and denied relief; the state appellate court affirmed.
- Borghi filed a § 2254 habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and seeking a new evidentiary hearing; the district court denied relief and declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (plea advice) | Counsel advised him to reject an 11‑year concurrent plea and told him max exposure was 7 years; he would have accepted the plea but for counsel’s advice | State contends Borghi’s account is inherently incredible and inconsistent (wouldn’t accept a VOP plea while trying the underlying charges; contradicted max‑sentence facts) | Denied — state court’s adverse credibility findings and rejection of the Strickland claim were reasonable under AEDPA |
| Request for new evidentiary hearing (counsel’s absence at state hearing) | Borghi contends the state hearing was inadequate because his VOP counsel did not testify, warranting a federal evidentiary hearing | State notes Borghi consented to proceed at the state hearing and opposed continuance; therefore he can’t complain now | Denied — Borghi consented to proceed; court declined to reopen or hold a federal evidentiary hearing |
| Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Borghi seeks permission to appeal denial of habeas relief | State opposes; court finds claims not debatable among reasonable jurists | Denied — petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (prejudice framework for rejected plea offers)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (AEDPA limits federal habeas review to unreasonable state‑court decisions)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for granting a Certificate of Appealability)