Johnny Shane Kormondy v. State of Florida
154 So. 3d 341
| Fla. | 2015Background
- Victim Gary McAdams was shot dead during a July 11, 1993 home invasion; Kormondy, Buffkin, and Hazen were co-defendants. Kormondy was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes and ultimately sentenced to death after a resentencing jury recommended death.
- Buffkin pled guilty to murder and received life; Hazen received a life-related sentence; Buffkin previously told police, gave a deposition, and testified at Hazen’s trial implicating Kormondy as the shooter.
- At trial and in other proceedings, William Long testified that Kormondy admitted he shot McAdams and said it was accidental; Cecilia McAdams’ testimony placed Kormondy in the kitchen with the victim when the fatal shot was fired.
- Kormondy filed multiple postconviction petitions; in 2005 Buffkin testified at an evidentiary hearing that he (Buffkin) accidentally killed McAdams, but the trial court found him not credible and denied relief; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
- After a death warrant was signed in 2014, Kormondy filed a successive 3.851 motion relying on new affidavits from inmates claiming Buffkin admitted he was the shooter (statements made mostly in 1996–2012) and claimed ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel; the trial court denied the motion and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kormondy) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence that Buffkin was the shooter | Affidavits from inmates saying Buffkin admitted to shooting McAdams show Kormondy was less culpable and would likely get life, so sentence should be vacated/reduced | Evidence is hearsay, cumulative, could have been pursued earlier with diligence, and does not overcome trial record (Long, Mrs. McAdams, admissions) | Denied; affidavits fail Jones two‑prong test (diligence/admissibility and probable different result) |
| Procedural bar / diligence to discover witnesses Hall/Michelson | Counsel only learned of Hall in 2014; earlier affidavits were unavailable | Buffkin had testified in 2005 that other inmates knew he was the triggerman; defense could have investigated then | Denied; defense could have discovered these inmate witnesses earlier with diligence |
| Whether inmate affidavits are admissible and material to sentencing relief | Affidavits would corroborate Buffkin’s prior recantation and show disproportionality | Affidavits are inadmissible hearsay for guilt phase and cumulative for penalty; statutory exception for penalty‑phase hearsay still requires fair opportunity to rebut and would not change result | Denied; even if admissible, affidavits would not probably produce acquittal or less severe sentence |
| Claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel (relying on Martinez/Trevino) | Postconviction counsel failed to develop Strickland/Brady/Giglio claims re: William Long; Martinez/Trevino and court’s equitable powers justify relief | Florida precedent holds ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is not cognizable in rule 3.851 proceedings; Martinez/Trevino do not supply independent state‑court relief | Denied; such claims are not cognizable in state 3.851 motion and Court declines to overturn prior decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1997) (direct appeal affirming convictions; remanded for new penalty phase)
- Kormondy v. State, 845 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2003) (affirming resentencing and death sentence)
- Kormondy v. State, 983 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2007) (affirming denial of initial postconviction relief and rejecting Buffkin recantation)
- Hazen v. State, 700 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1997) (codefendant’s sentencing and analysis of comparative culpability)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (establishing two‑prong test for newly discovered evidence)
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (standard for newly discovered evidence affecting sentence)
- Walton v. State, 3 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2009) (standard of review for summary denial of successive 3.851 motions)
- Franqui v. State, 59 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 2011) (ruling that evidentiary‑hearing decisions are legal rulings reviewed de novo)
- Swafford v. State, 125 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 2013) (courts must consider newly discovered evidence alongside all admissible evidence)
- Marek v. State, 14 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 2009) (discussion of newly discovered evidence standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (tolling/ineffective assistance at initial-review collateral proceedings — cited by petitioner)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (U.S. 2013) (Martinez extension in certain cases — cited by petitioner)