Jones v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15705

Harry Jones was convicted in Florida of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft for beating and drowning George Young; jury recommended death and trial court imposed death based on multiple aggravators.
At trial defense presented limited mitigation (childhood trauma, intoxication); trial counsel did not retain a mental-health expert despite a 1991 memo reporting MMPI results suggesting psychotic disturbance.
Post-conviction, Jones alleged (1) ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present mental-health mitigation and (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object when he was allegedly shackled in view of the venire during jury selection.
Florida courts: trial court denied an evidentiary hearing on the shackling claim (judge recalled no shackling before jurors); Florida Supreme Court found counsel deficient for not pursuing mental-health mitigation but no Strickland prejudice, and rejected the shackling-related ineffective-assistance claim for lack of specific prejudice allegations.
Federal district court denied habeas relief on both claims; Eleventh Circuit affirms, applying AEDPA deference and Strickland prejudice analysis and finding no unreasonable state-court adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/present mental-health mitigation	Jones: counsel unreasonably failed to follow up on Showalter/Dr. Berland memo indicating long‑standing psychosis, brain injury, and need for testing; prejudice likely to alter sentencing.	State: Florida Supreme Court reasonably found that any Berland mitigation would be limited and likely offset or undermined by DOC evaluations and rebuttal expert, and aggravators dominate.	Court: Affirmed — counsel was deficient but no Strickland prejudice; state court’s weighing of mitigation vs. aggravation was not unreasonable.
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to alleged shackling before venire; entitlement to evidentiary hearing	Jones: was shackled in view of venire; counsel’s failure to object prejudiced him; hearing should have been held to develop facts.	State: record and trial judge’s express recollection show no shackling before jury; Jones offered only conclusory allegations and no proffered evidence; no prejudice shown.	Court: Affirmed — no evidentiary hearing warranted on this sparse record and, even assuming shackling occurred, Jones failed to show a reasonable probability of different outcome under Strickland (Deck presumption does not displace Strickland prejudice burden on collateral ineffective‑assistance claim).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard of deficient performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel unreasonable when failing further investigation of plausible mitigation)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation; court must reweigh totality of mitigation)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (visible restraints before jury are inherently prejudicial; state must justify restraints on direct review)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA review limited to state‑court record)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (state‑court decisions must be objectively unreasonable to satisfy AEDPA)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (clarifies ‘contrary to’ and ‘unreasonable application’ under AEDPA)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)