James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida
148 So. 3d 1163
| Fla. | 2014Background
- James Aren Duckett, a former police officer, was convicted of sexual battery and first-degree murder (victim: 11-year-old Teresa McAbee); jury recommended death and the trial court imposed death plus life with a mandatory minimum for the sexual battery.
- Key physical evidence: victim last seen entering Duckett’s patrol car; unusual tire tracks at the lake matched Duckett’s car; both Duckett’s and the victim’s fingerprints on the hood; a pubic hair found in the victim’s underpants that an FBI analyst (Michael Malone) testified was "consistent with" and of a "high degree of probability" to be Duckett’s.
- Duckett’s convictions and initial postconviction relief denials were affirmed by this Court (Duckett I and Duckett II); federal habeas relief was also denied.
- In a successive 3.851 motion Duckett presented: (A) a 2011 independent review criticizing some of Malone’s work and testimony; (B) a claim that Porter v. McCollum should apply retroactively; (C) new affidavits suggesting a trial witness (Gwendolyn Gurley) recanted; and (D) a challenge to Fla. Stat. § 837.021 (perjury by contradictory statement).
- The circuit court summarily denied relief; this appeal challenges that summary denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Reliability of FBI hair analysis (Malone) / newly discovered evidence | 2011 independent review shows Malone overstated hair-match certainty and his trial testimony was inconsistent with lab notes; warrants evidentiary hearing/new relief | Malone’s testimony was largely within accepted bounds; some statements were overstated but were challenged at trial and hair evidence was only part of circumstantial case | Denied — 2011 report does not create reasonable doubt or require a hearing; hair evidence not dispositive given other strong evidence |
| B. Retroactivity of Porter v. McCollum | Porter should be applied retroactively under Witt to Duckett’s ineffective-assistance claims | Porter is not a fundamental change mandating Witt retroactivity | Denied — Porter is not retroactive under Witt |
| C. Witness recantation (Gurley) | New affidavits from Gurley’s children show she admitted lying at trial; constitutes newly discovered evidence requiring new trial | Similar recantation evidence was previously considered; new affidavits were not shown to be unavailable earlier and do not make a different verdict probable | Denied — claim procedurally deficient and meritless given prior consideration and insufficiency to render a different verdict probable |
| D. Validity of perjury-by-contradictory-statement statute (§ 837.021) | Statute chills witness testimony (Gurley invoked Fifth at prior hearing); statute therefore unconstitutional and violated due process | Claim untimely and procedurally barred; no timely, properly pleaded challenge | Denied — procedurally barred and untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckett v. State, 568 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1990) (direct appeal describing facts and Malone’s trial testimony)
- Duckett v. State, 918 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2005) (affirming denial of initial postconviction relief and addressing Malone and recantation claims)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (Supreme Court ineffective-assistance decision relied on by defendant)
- Smith v. State, 75 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 2011) (remand for claims based on FBI admission regarding CBLA evidence)
- Wyatt v. State, 78 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 2011) (addressing newly discovered forensic-science evidence and its impact on retrial probability)
- Walton v. State, 3 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2009) (standard for summary denial of successive 3.851 motions)
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (framework for retroactivity of new rules in postconviction proceedings)