John F. Mosley v. State of Florida & SC14-2108 John F. Mosley v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
209 So. 3d 1248
| Fla. | 2016Background
- John F. Mosley was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for killing Lynda Wilkes and their infant son Jay-Quan; the jury recommended death for the child's murder (8–4) and life for the adult; the trial court imposed death for Jay-Quan and life for Wilkes. Mosley’s convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in Mosley v. State.
- Mosley filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 postconviction motion raising Brady/Giglio/newly discovered-evidence claims about key witness Bernard Griffin, multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to strike a juror, failure to request an alibi instruction, failure to object to prosecutor statements), and cumulative error; an evidentiary hearing was held and the postconviction court denied relief.
- Mosley also filed a habeas petition claiming appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a purported unequivocal Faretta self-representation request; the postconviction court denied habeas relief.
- After briefing, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida, and Florida’s Supreme Court issued Hurst v. State interpreting Hurst to require unanimous jury findings of the critical facts necessary to impose death; Mosley sought relief under Hurst.
- The Florida Supreme Court: (1) affirmed denial of all postconviction claims on the merits (crediting prosecutor/Judge Senterfitt over Griffin for Brady/Giglio/newly discovered-evidence); (2) denied the habeas Faretta claim; but (3) applied Hurst retroactively to Mosley, found the nonunanimous 8–4 death recommendation not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, vacated his death sentence, and remanded for a new penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Mosley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio/newly discovered evidence re: Griffin | Griffin had an undisclosed promise/favorable treatment that would impeach his testimony; so suppression/false testimony warrants relief | No undisclosed plea/deal at trial; postconviction testimony from prosecutor (Judge Senterfitt) more credible; no material suppression | Denied — postconviction court credibility findings supported by substantial competent evidence; no Brady/Giglio/newly discovered-evidence relief |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to strike juror | Counsel should have moved to strike Juror R who expressed uncertainty about viewing graphic photos | Juror’s statements showed doubt only, not actual bias; to show prejudice postconviction must prove actual bias; counsel’s performance not deficient | Denied — no actual bias shown; Strickland prejudice standard not met |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to request alibi instruction | Counsel should have requested an alibi instruction because witnesses placed Mosley away during the relevant period | Counsel reasonably concluded the evidence did not establish a discrete alibi and strategically avoided requesting it to preserve credibility | Denied — strategic decision reasonable under Strickland |
| Hurst retroactivity and harmlessness | Hurst v. Florida/Hurst v. State require jury unanimity on all critical findings; because recommendation was 8–4, death sentence invalid and not harmless | State argued harmlessness or that Hurst should not apply retroactively (relying on Johnson/Teague-type retroactivity analysis) | Granted relief for Hurst claim — applied Hurst retroactively to Mosley, found Hurst error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, vacated death sentence and remanded for new penalty phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosley v. State, 46 So.3d 510 (Fla. 2009) (direct-appeal opinion affirming convictions and death sentence)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation requiring unanimous jury findings for death-penalty facts)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (U.S. Supreme Court holding Florida’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find facts increasing maximum punishment; applied to capital eligibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (Florida retroactivity framework for postconviction rule changes)
- Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2005) (prior Florida decision declining to apply Ring retroactively)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (federal retroactivity principles relevant to jury-trial rules)
- DiGuilio (State v. DiGuilio), 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard guidance for Florida)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and promises to witnesses)