Darryl Brian Barwick v. Secretary, Florida Department of COrrections
794 F.3d 1239
11th Cir.2015Background
- Barwick, a death-row inmate, challenged a Florida death sentence via 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition.
- Barwick was convicted in a re-trial (1992) for first-degree murder and related offenses; five aggravators supported death with minimal mitigating evidence.
- Florida Supreme Court affirmed conviction and sentence; U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Barwick v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1097 (1996).
- Barwick asserted multiple federal constitutional claims, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC), Giglio, and mitigating-evidence issues, later expanded to five claims on appeal.
- District court denied relief on all grounds but granted COA for some issues; this court reviewed under AEDPA deferential standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IATC penalty-phase mitigation evidence | Barwick claims counsel failed to present/adequately investigate mitigating evidence | Florida Supreme Court found no prejudice; strategy reasonable | No reasonable probability of different outcome; AEDPA deferential standard preserved denial. |
| Failure to impeach Capers at guilt phase | Capers’s inconsistent testimony should have been impeached | Differences were subjective, not false; no prejudice in light of sole aggravation and death verdict | No Strickland prejudice; Florida court reasonably applied prejudice standard. |
| Giglio claim about Capers’s false testimony | Prosecutor knew Capers’s testimony was false or failing to correct it | Testimony not shown to be false; differences were interpretive | Not proven material false testimony; AEDPA deferential review upheld ruling. |
| Child-abuse mitigation rejected | Trial court failed to consider mitigating abuse evidence adequately | Court weighed evidence; abuse acknowledged as mitigating but not outweighing aggravators | Florida Supreme Court’s weighing was not unreasonable under AEDPA; claim denied. |
| Execution of a mentally-impacted adult (Roper / age-based concern) | Barwick’s mental-age evidence makes death unconstitutional under evolving standards | Roper limited to under-18; Barwick was >18; not unconstitutional | Roper not extended to mental age; Florida court did not err under clearly established federal law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (defining deficient performance and prejudice standards for IATC)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review is deferential in assessing state-court decisions)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (reasonableness of Strickland’s prejudice analysis under AEDPA)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (U.S. 2004) (fairminded disagreement allowed under AEDPA)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (requirement that sentencer consider mitigating evidence)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (juvenile-age death-penalty jurisprudence; not extended to mental age here)
- Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1995) (Florida Supreme Court direct-appeal mitigation analysis)
- Barwick v. State, 88 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2011) (Barwick IV; postconviction affirmation of conviction and sentence)