Johnson v. State
104 So. 3d 1010
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Johnson appeals a circuit court denial of postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850, challenging his White murder conviction and death sentence.
- Trial and capital sentencing included three aggravators (prior violent felony, financial gain, HAC) and numerous mitigators; direct appeal upheld death sentence.
- Postconviction proceedings consolidated with related McCahon murder case; evidentiary hearing in 2005 reviewed defense mental health and mitigation strategy.
- Claims included ineffective assistance by trial counsel regarding mental health experts (Afield, Maher, Ofshe), handling of Dr. Brigham’s eyewitness testimony, and failure to hire a mitigation expert.
- Court denied remaining postconviction claims after evidentiary hearing; summary denials addressed other claims as procedurally barred or meritless.
- Court affirmed denial of postconviction relief as to Johnson’s White-murder conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance re: mental health witnesses | Johnson’s counsel mishandled Drs. Afield, Maher, Ofshe. | Counsel’s decisions were strategic and not deficient. | No deficient performance; strategic decisions; no prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance re: Dr. Brigham in Cornell case | Counsel failed to pursue Brigham, affecting aggravator proof. | Johnson's underlying conviction remains valid; no prejudice. | Johnson not entitled to relief; no prejudice given valid conviction. |
| Failure to hire a mitigation expert | Mitigation expert could have supplied more credible evidence. | Mitigation was already explored; expert would be cumulative and not persuasive. | No prejudice; not entitled to relief. |
| Constitutional challenges post Ring and procedural bars | Ring retroactivity and procedural bars undermine valid death sentence. | Ring not retroactive; aggravators still valid; claims procedurally barred. | Claims affirmatively denied; Ring does not apply retroactively; barred. |
| Cumulative error claim | Multiple errors collectively undermined fairness. | No multiple errors proven; no cumulative error. | Rejected; no basis for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637 (Fla.1995) (direct appeal of murder convictions; basis for aggravators and HAC)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766 (Fla.2004) (mixed standard of review for Strickland claims)
- Lukehart v. State, 70 So.3d 503 (Fla.2011) (cognizable claims when underlying conviction still valid)
- Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82 (Fla.2011) (procedural bar and legal insufficiency standards in postconviction)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (not retroactive to cases final on direct review)
- Valle v. State, 70 So.3d 530 (Fla.2011) (upheld constitutionality of Florida's lethal injection procedure)
- Owen v. State, 986 So.2d 534 (Fla.2008) (not ineffective for comments that are not improper)