David Sylvester Frances v. State of Florida, 143 So. 3d 340

Frances seeks postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 after direct-appeal death sentence affirmed.
An evidentiary hearing was granted on several guilt- and mitigation-related claims.
Guilt-phase issues included ineffective assistance for failing to object to the strike of Venireperson Roberts and to alleged trial-court and prosecutorial comments during voir dire.
Penalty-phase claims centered on failure to investigate/present mitigation, and alleged improper state comments about mitigators and race.
The circuit court denied relief on all postconviction claims; Frances also sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the death sentence.
Florida Supreme Court affirmatively concluded no prejudice or deficient performance established, and denied habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for striking a minority venireperson	Frances contends Roberts was improperly stricken for race or bias.	State/prosecutor strike was proper for cause; no actual bias shown.	No reversible error; no prejudice shown; claim denied.
Trial court and state comments during voir dire tainting the jury	Counsel ineffective for not objecting to Southern/Yankee remarks.	Comments were improper but not prejudicial; defense strategy supported, no outcome change.	Comments not prejudicial; relief denied.
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to state’s mitigation-list remarks	State’s promise to provide a list of mitigators perverted strategy and tainted trial.	Counsel's inaction was strategic and not prejudicial.	No prejudice; claim denied.
Ineffective assistance during penalty phase for failure to investigate/present mitigation	Counsel failed to develop mitigating evidence that could sway the balance against death.	Evidence presented at trial and in hearing did not show reasonable probability of different result.	Mitigation claims rejected; no substantial prejudice.
Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise evolving-standards arguments (Atkins/Simmons) and strike on direct appeal	Appellate counsel should have challenged evolving-standards reasoning and Roberts strike on appeal.	Nonmeritorious issues or unpreserved claims cannot establish error; strategy supports nonreview.	No fundamental error; habeas relief denied.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Carratelli v. State, 961 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2007) (actual-bias requirement for juror challenges in postconviction)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (racially discriminatory jury selections prohibited)
State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984) (test for racial discrimination in peremptory challenges)
Freeman v. State, 858 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2003) (race-based considerations in death-penalty decisions)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1987) (McCleskey holding on race as determining factor)
Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2004) (Strickland prejudice standard in capital sentencing)
Troy v. State, 57 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 2011) (mitigation evidence admissibility and prejudice standard)
Henry v. State, 948 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2006) (defense strategy deference in Strickland analysis)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (voir dire and juror challenges procedures)
Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1989) (issues with juror exclusion standards)
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (fundamental-error review in direct appeal context)