Buzia v. State, 82 So. 3d 784

Buzia is under a death sentence for the murder of Charles Kersch and related crimes; trial resulted in death sentence after an eight-to-four jury recommendation.
The State proved a brutal March 14, 2000, attack on the Kersches, taking money and car keys with use of an axe, and the next-day arrest while attempting to cash a check.
Mitigation included substantial weight on four aggravators (HAC, CCP, prior violent felony, avoid arrest) and minimal weight on several nonstatutory factors.
The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing on some claims and summarily denied others; the Florida Supreme Court reviews for competent, substantial evidence.
Buzia raises multiple postconviction claims (mitigation, suppression of confession, tape completeness, guilt-phase issues, fingerprint/Brady claims, cumulative error, and competence for execution) and habeas claims; the court affirms the denial of relief and denies the habeas petition.
The Court affirms denial of postconviction relief and denies the habeas corpus petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mitigation strategy effectiveness at penalty phase	Buzia argues trial counsel failed to develop/present mitigation.	State contends counsel reasonably pursued a strategy with witnesses and expert testimony.	No relief; Strickland deficient performance not shown, nor prejudice.
Failure to move to suppress confession	Buzia asserts intoxication undermined voluntary waiver of rights.	State shows no intoxication; waiver was knowing and voluntary.	No relief; no prejudice from failure to file suppression motion.
Complete interview tape strategy	Excluding last minutes deprived jury of remorse/expression affecting verdict.	Counsel strategically chose to exclude; later tape portion was harmful, so reasonable.	No relief; strategic decision reasonable.
Guilt-phase ineffectiveness—evidence preservation and brain damage	Failure to preserve/test blood; assert brain damage negates premeditation.	Defense relied on mental health expert; no showing brain damage negates premeditation.	No relief; evidence supported premeditation; voluntariness/brain damage not shown.
Fingerprint evidence, Brady, and newly discovered evidence	Independent expert would show palm print not Buzia’s; possible Brady issue; new evidence could affect guilt.	Print was inconclusive; no Brady violation; new evidence unlikely to change outcome.	No relief; no material Brady violation or likelihood of acquittal from new evidence.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2007) (review of mental-health evidence and strategy in postconviction context)
Card v. State, 992 So.2d 810 (Fla. 2008) (considerations on evaluating adequacy of defense strategy)
Mansfield v. State, 911 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 2005) (trial strategy not ineffective when thwarted by State actions)
Kimbrough v. State, 886 So.2d 965 (Fla. 2004) (standard for reviewing summary denials in postconviction claims)
Spann v. State, 985 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 2008) (fair comment on evidence as a prosecutorial issue in closing)