Franqui v. State
59 So. 3d 82
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Franqui was convicted of December 6, 1991 murder of Raul Lopez in Medley, Florida and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed most convictions but reversed two attempted murder convictions and held CCP aggravator; postconviction relief motions under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 were filed in 1999 with hearings and amendments through 2009; claims included mental retardation, ineffective assistance, and Brady/Giglio issues involving codefendant Abreu; circuit court denied postconviction relief in part; Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial on appeal.
- The postconviction proceedings included an evidentiary hearing on mental retardation, consideration of Atkins, Ring, and Cherry jurisprudence, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on prosecutorial comments and failure to present witnesses; Brady/Giglio issues centered on Abreu’s penalty-phase testimony; court ultimately upheld the denial of postconviction relief.
- Evidence at trial showed Franqui and codefendants planned to rob the Cabanases, used stolen Suburbans, and Lopez was killed during the attempt; Franqui confessed and San Martin testified, Abreu’s statements were admitted but did not alter CCP aggravator assessment; the CCP aggravator and other aggravators supported the death sentence; postconviction claims alleging ineffective assistance and Brady/Giglio violations were rejected after hearings and review.
- Franqui argued Florida’s mental retardation standard (Cherry/Nixon) conflicted with Atkins; the Court held Atkins did not require a fixed IQ cutoff and Florida’s three-prong test remains valid under state law; the circuit court’s finding Franqui is not mentally retarded was supported by competent substantial evidence.
- The Court addressed multiple ineffective-assistance theories under Strickland, finding no prejudice or strategic justification for counsel’s actions; prosecutorial comments, failure to present Dr. Fisher, and failure to call Vivian Gonzalez were not shown to undermine trial fairness; Brady/Giglio claims regarding Abreu were not proven to have affected the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mental retardation standard post-Atkins | Franqui argues Cherry/Nixon misreads Atkins; IQ cutoff too rigid. | Franqui relies on Atkins to require higher IQ range. | Florida’s three-prong test remains valid; Atkins did not mandate a 75 cut-off. |
| Prosecutorial comments and prejudice | Counsel ineffective for failing to object to inflammatory prosecutor comments. | Most comments were fair or harmless; no prejudice shown. | No Strickland prejudice; no effective-assistance relief granted. |
| Failure to present Dr. Fisher's testimony | Counsel should have presented Fisher to counter Toomer’s mitigation. | Fisher’s testimony would have undermined Toomer; strategy reasonable. | Strategic choice not prejudicial; no relief. |
| Failure to call Vivian Gonzalez; suppression hearing relevance | Gonzalez could have testified about invoking counsel and condition during interrogation. | Her testimony not material; invocation not affected by prior statements. | No relief; testimony not shown to alter outcomes. |
| Brady/Giglio re Abreu testimony | State suppressed/paid for false testimony to bolster CCP aggravator. | No suppression; inconsistencies not material; testimony not false. | No Brady/Giglio violation; CCP supported by other evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Jury must find aggravating factors that are elements of the crime)
- Cherry v. State, 959 So.2d 702 (Fla.2007) (Strict IQ cutoff of 70 under Florida’s mental retardation statute)
- Nixon v. State, 2 So.3d 137 (Fla.2009) (Clarifies Atkins interpretation and Florida’s conformance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (Standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice must be shown)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (States devise mechanisms to enforce restrictions on execution)
- Maharaj v. State, 778 So.2d 944 (Fla.2000) (Evidence of perjury standards in postconviction context)
- Guzman v. State, 941 So.2d 1045 (Fla.2006) (Harmless error analysis for Brady/Giglio context)
- DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) (Harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional error)