Johnston v. State, 63 So. 3d 730

Johnston challenged a death sentence and conviction via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 postconviction proceedings after direct appeal affirmed both.
Trial evidence showed Johnston murdered, raped, and strangled Leanne Coryell, then used her ATM card to withdraw money the same night; his fingerprint matched exterior of Coryell’s car; wet tennis shoes linked to the scene.
During pretrial, he initially told police he was friends with Coryell and had dined with her; later interviews revealed inconsistencies and he was arrested for grand theft; Miranda warnings followed.
The trial court imposed four aggravators, one statutory mitigator, and multiple nonstatutory mitigators; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
In postconviction, Johnston raised numerous ineffective-assistance claims and sought habeas corpus relief; the circuit court held evidentiary hearings on some claims and denied relief, which the Supreme Court now affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for voir dire of juror Robinson	Johnston contends further questioning would show nondisclosure and potential for strike.	Counsel used reasonable strategy; disclosure wouldn’t have changed outcome.	No deficient performance; no prejudice shown.
Failure to move to suppress statements	Counsel should have sought suppression of statements obtained before Miranda and during interrogation.	Strategic choice; statements were voluntary and suppressing would fail.	No deficient performance; no prejudice.
Failure to call Diane Busch as a witness	Additional mitigation/character evidence could aid	Strategic value low; could open damaging cross-examination.	No deficient performance; no prejudice.
Psychotropic medication and competency/influence on trial	Evidence of medication could show incompetence or affect demeanor	Expert testimony supported competency; no prejudice from lack of instruction.	No deficient performance; no prejudice.
Counsel's strategy on defendant's penalty-phase testimony and mitigation	Counsel gave ill-advised guidance about testifying; more mitigation needed	Counsel acted reasonably; Johnston chose to testify (or not) consistent with strategy.	No deficient performance; no prejudice.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938 (Fla. 2009) (focuses on reasonable professional judgment in mitigating investigations)
Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2000) (deference to trial counsel’s strategic decisions)
Ferrell v. State, 29 So.3d 959 (Fla.2010) (merits of ineffective assistance and meritless arguments)
Murray v. State, 3 So.3d 1108 (Fla.2009) (materiality and juror nondisclosure analysis in jury-trial context)