Howard Steven Ault v. State of Florida, 213 So. 3d 670

Defendant Howard Steven Ault was convicted of murdering two young sisters after confessing in detail; bodies were found in his attic. He was sentenced to death.
Initial direct appeal (Ault I) affirmed convictions but vacated death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase; resentencing later resulted in two death sentences (Ault II), affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari denied.
Ault filed Rule 3.851 postconviction motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at guilt and penalty phases (multiple subclaims about investigation, openings, expert preparation, and mitigation like low IQ and mental-health evidence).
The postconviction court granted an evidentiary hearing on only the claim concerning admission of prior expert testimony and summarily denied other claims; Ault appealed the summary denials (except speedy-trial claim).
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of the guilt-phase ineffective-assistance claim (finding no Strickland prejudice given Ault’s detailed confession) but held Hurst error required vacating the death sentences and remanding for a new penalty phase.

Issue	Ault's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — guilt phase (Strickland)	Kulick conceded guilt, failed to investigate/cross-examine, argued intoxication and borderline intellectual disability without proof, and rested without presenting evidence; these errors prejudiced Ault.	Even with alternative defense work, the confession and overwhelming evidence would have produced the same verdict; no Strickland prejudice.	Affirmed denial — no prejudice shown; confession makes outcome inevitable.
Hurst error (nonunanimous jury finding at sentencing)	Nonunanimous recommendations and lack of jury findings on aggravators/mitigators violated Hurst and required relief.	State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Hurst error was harmless.	Reversed death sentences — Hurst error not harmless; vacate death sentences and remand for new penalty phase.
Evidentiary hearing on postconviction claims	Ault argued multiple claims warranted factual development.	Court limited hearing to portion concerning prior expert testimony; other claims positively refuted or legally insufficient.	Summary denial of most claims affirmed; limited hearing was proper.
Whether to address penalty-phase ineffective assistance claims now	Ault urged review of penalty-phase IAC claims.	Because Hurst relief requires new penalty phase, court need not resolve penalty-phase IAC claims now.	Court declined to address remaining penalty-phase IAC claims; vacated death sentences under Hurst.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings requirement)
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (jury must unanimously find all critical facts before death sentence)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (harmless-error standard and focus on whether error affected trier-of-fact)
Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2003) (Ault I — convictions affirmed; penalty remanded)
Ault v. State, 53 So.3d 175 (Fla. 2010) (Ault II — resentencing affirmed on direct appeal)
Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1986) (summarizes Strickland application in Florida)
Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2000) (strategic decisions are protected if reasonable)