David Scott Franks v. GDCP Warden
975 F.3d 1165
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background:
- David Scott Franks murdered two men at his pawn shop, then drove to the Wilson home where he robbed, fatally stabbed Debbie Wilson, and severely wounded her two children; physical evidence and eyewitness IDs strongly tied Franks to the crimes.
- A Hall County jury convicted Franks of multiple offenses and unanimously recommended death; the trial court sentenced him to death for Debbie Wilson’s murder after finding five statutory aggravators.
- Trial counsel focused the penalty-phase strategy on residual doubt and presented family character witnesses; they did not develop extensive neuropsychological or deeply detailed childhood/substance-abuse mitigation.
- Franks raised ineffective-assistance claims (trial and appellate counsel) in state habeas; the state habeas court held counsel were not ineffective and that additional mitigation presented later was weak; the federal district court denied §2254 relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted a COA limited to whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present an ineffective-assistance claim at sentencing, reviewed trial counsel’s performance under Strickland and AEDPA deference, and affirmed denial of the petition.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Franks) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present an IAC claim about sentencing | Appellate counsel failed to adequately present that trial counsel were ineffective at the penalty phase | Appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim; focus should be on whether trial counsel were ineffective | Denied — appellate counsel not ineffective because trial counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient under Strickland/AEDPA |
| Whether trial counsel were deficient for relying on a residual-doubt strategy at sentencing | Reliance on residual doubt was unreasonable given strong guilt evidence; counsel should have developed other mitigation | Residual-doubt strategy was a reasonable tactical choice given horrific facts and some supporting evidence for third-party involvement | Denied — strategy was reasonable; state court’s finding not an unreasonable application of law |
| Whether counsel were deficient for not obtaining/presenting neuropsych/mental-health evidence | Inconsistent memory and school records were red flags requiring neuropsych testing and expert mitigation evidence | Investigation (mitigation investigator and family interviews) revealed no strong basis; defense did present Dr. Connell on PTSD; experts later offered equivocal findings | Denied — investigation was reasonable; failure to present equivocal neuropsych evidence was not deficient and produced no prejudice |
| Whether counsel were deficient for failing to present fuller childhood/substance-abuse mitigation | More detailed evidence of an abusive childhood and chronic drug abuse would have meaningfully aided mitigation | Much of this material was cumulative of trial testimony; drug history is a two-edged sword and could undermine residual-doubt theory | Denied — additional evidence was weak/cumulative and would not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established the two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (failure to investigate significant mitigation can constitute deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standards and prejudice from omitted mitigation evidence)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference under AEDPA and interplay with Strickland)
- Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. en banc) (strong deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
- Ferrell v. Hall, 640 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.) (prejudice where mitigation evidence of organic brain damage was unequivocal)
- Jefferson v. GDCP Warden, 941 F.3d 452 (11th Cir.) (mitigation based on clear organic brain injury can establish prejudice)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (per curiam) (omitted mitigation that dramatically altered defendant’s profile can cause prejudice)