Conahan v. State
118 So. 3d 718
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Conahan was convicted at a bench trial of first-degree premeditated murder and kidnapping of Richard Montgomery; the body was found nude, ligatured, with genital removal, in a secluded area, with corroborating scene evidence and a similar prior assault (Stanley Burden) investigated for Williams rule purposes.
- The State presented evidence of Montgomery’s disappearance timing, Conahan’s purchase of rope and other items, and financial transactions linking him to the time and place of the crime.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- In October 2009 Conahan filed a multi-claim postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851; an evidentiary hearing was held in June 2010, after which the circuit court denied relief on all claims.
- Conahan then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief on various grounds, including ineffective appellate counsel; the Florida Supreme Court denied both the postconviction relief and the habeas petition, affirming the circuit court.
- The court held that the postconviction claims failed on the merits or were procedurally barred and that the habeas petition likewise lacked merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance during guilt phase | Conahan, through IAC claims, argues trial counsel failed to demand a Richardson hearing, secure a forensic audio expert, and challenge Williams rule evidence | Conahan’s claims lack deficient performance and prejudice; reasonable strategic decisions supported trial counsel | Denied; Strickland prongs not satisfied for these subclaims |
| Giglio/ Brady issues | Conahan asserts false testimony and suppressed evidence (Giglio/ Brady) affected the outcome | No false testimony proven; any recording existence is unproven or non-material; no suppression proven | Denied; no material Giglio or Brady violation shown |
| Ineffective assistance during penalty phase | Counsel failed to investigate/present mitigating evidence (mental health, experts, witnesses) | No prejudice; mitigation evidence would not outweigh aggravation when weighed together | Denied; no reasonable probability of different death sentence |
| Prosecutorial misconduct as fundamental error | Cumulative prosecutorial misconduct denied; claims should have been raised on direct appeal | Misconduct claims are procedurally barred or meritless; no fundamental error shown | Denied; claims procedurally barred or not fundamental error |
| Appellate counsel ineffective on direct appeal | Appellate counsel failed to argue Williams rule error and other issues | Issues were meritless or not properly preserved; not fundamental errors warranting relief | Denied; appellate counsel not ineffective for meritless or unpreserved issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Florida 1959) (admissibility of Williams rule evidence context)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037 (Florida 2000) (counsel's strategic decisions not inherently ineffective)
- Bolin v. State, 41 So.3d 151 (Florida 2010) (mixed standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
- Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927 (Florida 1986) (standard for evaluating performance and prejudice)