Dennis Sochor v. Secretary Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13282

Background

Sochor was sentenced to death for kidnapping and the murder of Patty Gifford after confessing to the crimes in 1981 Florida.
At trial, mitigation evidence focused on Sochor’s troubled childhood and alcohol/drug abuse; three mental health experts evaluated Sochor but did not testify to mitigating statutory factors.
During the penalty phase, the state presented extensive evidence of Sochor’s prior violent sexual assaults and the brutal nature of Patty’s murder; defense presented expert and lay testimony suggesting diminished capacity and disturbance.
Sochor later sought postconviction relief under Florida rules, presenting new mental-health evidence from two experts (Greer and Froming) and appealing Brady and Giglio-related claims through an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court and the Florida Supreme Court found deficient performance by trial counsel but concluded there was no prejudice, affirming Sochor IV (2004) and denying relief.
Sochor filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); the district court and Eleventh Circuit undertook de novo review, applying Porter II’s framework and Harrington v. Richter standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s alleged deficient penalty-phase investigation prejudiced Sochor	Sochor contends deficient investigation and presentation of mental-health mitigation prejudiced the outcome.	Florida argues the state court reasonably weighed conflicting expert testimony and found no prejudice.	Sochor cannot show prejudice; de novo review confirms no reasonable probability of a different sentence.
Whether Brady and Giglio claims regarding immunity and false testimony were properly resolved	Sochor asserts the state violated Brady and Giglio by withholding immunity and eliciting false testimony through Gary Sochor.	Florida contends the state court’s factual findings were reasonable and credibility determinations were supported by competent evidence.	Brady and Giglio claims fail; factual determinations not shown to be unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2001) (Porter I—state postconviction mitigation decision)
Porter v. State, 130 S. Ct. 447 (U.S. 2009) (Porter II—SCOTUS repudiated Porter I approach)
Porter v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr., 883 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2004) (Sochor IV—Florida court’s prejudice analysis cited Porter I)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (weighing nonstatutory mitigation against aggravation)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (two-step framework for reviewing state court decisions)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (prejudice prong in death penalty cases)
Jefferson v. Fountain, 382 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (deference to state court factual findings)
Rogers v. Zant, 13 F.3d 384 (11th Cir. 1994) (jury hostility to mitigating evidence)
Suggs v. McNeil, 609 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-edged sword of drug/alcohol mitigation)
Dobbs v. Turpin, 142 F.3d 1383 (11th Cir. 1998) (aggravating factors can outweigh mitigation)
Jackson v. Herring, 42 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1995) (aggravation weight in capital cases)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mandatory consideration of relevant mitigating factors)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (exposure of favorable evidence due to due process)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment evidence and witness credibility)
Hoskins v. State, 965 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2007) (consideration of nonstatutory mitigation in Florida)
Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011) (heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravator weight)
Silva v. State, 60 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2011) (weight of prior violent felony aggravator)