288 So.3d 1065
Fla.2019Background
- Brett A. Bogle was convicted in 1992 of first-degree murder, burglary with assault/battery, and retaliation; death sentence imposed after second penalty phase and became final in 1995.
- No eyewitnesses; victim’s body showed blunt-force trauma and sexual assault; DNA evidence at trial showed Bogle’s semen in the victim’s body and underwear.
- FBI agent Michael Malone testified that a pubic hair on Bogle’s pants microscopically matched the victim, but acknowledged on cross that hair comparisons do not provide absolute identification.
- A 2013 DOJ/FBI review concluded Malone’s testimony in multiple cases overstated the reliability of microscopic hair comparisons; Bogle relied on that review in a 2014 successive 3.851 motion alleging Brady/Giglio/newly discovered evidence claims and Hurst-related relief.
- The circuit court summarily denied the successive motion as procedurally barred and without merit on Hurst grounds; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bogle) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio: Whether the State suppressed or knowingly presented false evidence about Malone’s hair testimony | DOJ/FBI 2013 review shows Malone overstated hair-match reliability; that information was Brady/Giglio material | Bogle knew or could have discovered issues with Malone earlier; claims are successive and procedurally barred | Claims procedurally barred under rule 3.851(e)(2); summary denial affirmed |
| Newly discovered evidence: Whether the 2013 review is newly discovered evidence warranting relief | 2013 review is new evidence undermining Malone and would likely produce acquittal | Review amplifies trial cross-exam testimony but does not overcome strong DNA evidence; even if new, it would not probably produce acquittal | Denied — the review would not probably produce an acquittal given overwhelming DNA evidence |
| Procedural bar / Successive motion rule: Whether Bogle could properly raise these claims in a successive motion | 2013 report post-dates earlier proceedings and constitutes new grounds for relief | Rule 3.851 bars litigation of matters that could have been raised earlier with due diligence | Affirmed: successive motion framework bars these claims because deficiencies were known or discoverable earlier |
| Hurst retroactivity: Whether Hurst and post-Hurst statutory changes apply retroactively to Bogle | Hurst and statutory changes require full retroactive relief | State argues Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences final before Ring or that claims lack merit | Denied: Hurst relief unavailable to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring; court declines to revisit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogle v. State, 655 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1995) (direct appeal affirming conviction and death sentence)
- Bogle v. State, 213 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 2017) (prior postconviction decision addressing trial issues)
- Duckett v. State, 231 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2017) (denying newly discovered evidence claim based on 2013 federal review of Malone)
- Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2016) (similar denial of claims arising from federal review of hair-comparison testimony)
- Schwab v. State, 969 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2007) (successive 3.851 motion rule and limitations)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (standards for newly discovered evidence)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision on jury role in capital sentencing)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find any fact increasing maximum penalty)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (due process violation where prosecution knowingly uses false testimony)
- Reese v. State, 261 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 2019) (denying similar Hurst-based claims)