Griffin v. State, 114 So. 3d 890

Griffin pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder for the McCallops killings in 1995 and received a death sentence after a penalty phase.
Griffin and Lopez planned to steal cash from Service America lockers; Griffin recruited Lopez, obtained weapons, and targeted the warehouse using his familiarity with the facility.
Griffin argued some aspects of the guilt-phase and penalty-phase conduct by trial counsel were ineffective and raised a Brady claim regarding an immunity deal for a coconspirator.
A postconviction evidentiary hearing addressed guilt-phase ineffectiveness, penalty-phase ineffectiveness, a Brady claim, and a motion to withdraw the guilty plea; a new penalty phase was granted on the ineffectiveness claim.
The trial court denied most claims, granted relief only on the penalty-phase ineffectiveness, and the court sua sponte addressed Lopez’s life sentence disparity as potential basis for relief.
The court denied Griffin habeas relief on procedurally barred grounds, affirmed denial of withdrawal of plea and other guilt-phase/Brady claims, and vacated the death sentences to remand for a new penalty phase.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Griffin could withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing	Griffin argues rule 3.170(£) time limit is not jurisdictional	State contends time limit is jurisdictional, and failure to file within 30 days bars review	The motion to withdraw plea was timely or jurisdictionally barred, and court did not abuse discretion.
Ineffective assistance of counsel during guilt phase affected voluntariness of the plea	Griffin claims counsel’s errors rendered plea involuntary	Record shows plea knowingly and voluntarily entered; no prejudice shown	No prejudice; plea voluntary and supported by record.
Brady violation due to immunity deal for coconspirator	Kocolis immunity evidence suppressed; favorable to Griffin	Trial court credibility found no immunity; evidence not material to outcome	No Brady violation proven; not material to conviction.
New penalty phase due to ineffective penalty-phase counsel	Mitigating evidence uninvestigated; would have affected sentence	Counsel had strategic reasons; evidence not proven to change outcome	Griffin entitled to a new penalty phase for penalty-phase ineffectiveness; prejudice shown.
Disparity/proportionality review based on Lopez’s later life sentence	Lopez’s life sentence after Griffin implies disproportionate death sentence	Disparity evidence not timely raised in postconviction; procedural bar	Habeas relief denied as procedurally barred; disparity review not granted on petition.

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (two-prong Strickland standard for guilty-plea ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Porter v. McCollum, 559 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2009) (reliability of penalty-phase proceedings with new mitigation evidence)
Grosvenor v. State, 874 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 2004) (assessing probability defendant would have gone to trial in plea context)
Scott v. Dugger, 604 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1992) (newly discovered evidence in disparity review of co-defendants)
Lawrence v. State, 969 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2007) (prejudice and totality of circumstances in guilty-plea ineffective claims)
White v. State, 15 So.3d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (prejudice standard; regular plea colloquy sufficiency)