Hoskins v. State
75 So. 3d 250
Fla.2011Background
- Hoskins sexually assaulted and murdered Dorothy Berger in her Melbourne, Florida home, then transported her to Georgia where he strangled and buried her.
- He was convicted of first‑degree murder, burglary of a dwelling, sexual battery with force, kidnapping, and robbery; trial court later imposed death penalties after multiple penalty phases.
- The Florida Supreme Court remanded for a PET scan of Hoskins based on neuropsychological testimony; a later penalty phase again resulted in a death sentence.
- Hoskins sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in mitigation; an evidentiary hearing was held and relief denied.
- The court applied Strickland’s two‑prong test, reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo, and ultimately affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intermittent explosive disorder evidence vs statutory mitigators | Hoskins argues IED evidence should satisfy statutory mitigators. | Hoskins contends counsel should have obtained IED testimony. | Denied; no deficient performance or prejudice shown. |
| Use of a mitigation specialist | Failure to hire a mitigation expert prejudiced the result. | Not per se ineffective; records and testimony were adequately developed. | Denied; no prejudice shown. |
| Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse as mitigation | Substance abuse history should mitigate and affect balance of factors. | Evidence did not change the aggravating‑mitigating balance. | Denied; no reasonable probability the outcome would differ. |
| Cumulative error | Cumulative errors require relief. | No errors individually, so no cumulative relief. | Denied; no relief for cumulative error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Duest v. State, 12 So.3d 734 (Fla. 2009) (procedural framework for reviewing deficient performance)
- Anderson v. State, 18 So.3d 501 (Fla. 2009) (mixed review; defer factual findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
- Henry v. State, 937 So.2d 563 (Fla. 2006) (prejudice standard for mitigation evidence in penalty phase)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1999) (prejudice analysis for ineffective mitigation evidence)
- Kilgore v. State, 55 So.3d 487 (Fla. 2010) (non‑per se rejection of mitigation evidence issues)