Hildwin v. State, 84 So. 3d 180

Hildwin was death-sentenced in 1986 for the murder of Vronzettie Cox; direct appeal affirmed, then a postconviction claim led to a new penalty-phase trial in 1996; the new penalty phase again resulted in death sentence; postconviction relief was denied; issue on appeal is ineffective assistance in the second penalty phase and improper closing argument beliefs.
The 1996 resentencing presented substantial mental-health mitigation (two experts opined brain impairment/mental illness; extensive lay testimony about childhood abuse), but the court found mitigating evidence outweighed by aggravators.
In the 1998 direct appeal, this Court upheld the death sentence; postconviction evidentiary hearing occurred with testimony from Dr. Greenbaum, Dr. Berland, and resentencing counsel regarding trial strategy and deficiencies.
The trial court found four aggravators (imprisoned at time of murder, prior violent felonies, pecuniary gain, HAC) and several mitigators, and concluded mitigation did not defeat the aggravation; on review, the court assessed Strickland-based standards for deficient performance and prejudice.
Two primary claims on appeal: (1) ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present mental-health mitigation in the 1996 phase; (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object to prosecutorial closing remarks; the Court denied relief on both.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance—mitigation evidence in resentencing	Hildwin contends counsel failed to call Dr. Carbonell and to provide Berland with records/witness contacts.	Counsel’s strategic decisions, including not calling Carbonell and limiting witness contact, were reasonable under professional norms.	No prejudice; mitigation outweighed by aggravators; strategic choices were reasonable.
Ineffective assistance—closing argument	Trial counsel should have objected to alleged eye-for-an-eye/mercy-type statements by the prosecutor.	Lack of objection was a tactical decision.	No prejudice; mercy argument not reversible error when not emphasized in closing.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
Sears v. Upton, 130 S. Ct. 3259 (U.S. 2010) (probing, fact-specific Strickland analysis for mitigating evidence)
Porter v. McCollum, U.S. (U.S. 2010) (reweighing totality of mitigation against aggravation)
Reynolds v. State, 934 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 2006) (lingering doubt as mitigator conventionally not valid)
Merck v. State, 975 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2007) (closing argument/mercy argument standards)
Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2004) (mercy argument improper but not reversible per se)
Nowell v. State, 998 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2008) (prohibition on improper sympathy appeals in closing)
Conahan v. State, 844 So.2d 629 (Fla. 2003) (improper sympathy appeals in closing)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (Strickland prejudice analysis for mitigation)