Krawczuk v. State
92 So. 3d 195
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Krawczuk was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the Staker homicide in 1990; Poirier was his co-defendant who received 35 years for second-degree murder.
- A pretrial suppression motion challenged the voluntariness of Krawczuk’s confession; the court denied the motion, and the confession was admitted after Miranda rights were waived.
- During the penalty phase, Krawczuk refused to allow his counsel to participate in jury selection or present mitigation; the jury recommended death and the court imposed it based on multiple aggravators and a statutory mitigator.
- Krawczuk pursued postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, including an evidentiary hearing in 2004 following an A. Huff evidentiary proceeding in 2002.
- The circuit court denied postconviction relief on multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial error, and handling of mitigating evidence; the petition for habeas corpus was likewise denied.
- This Court affirmatively denied postconviction relief and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, with Justice Pariente concurring in result on the propriety of the waiver of mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction court properly denied disqualification and bias claims | Krawczuk claimed judge bias and improper reliance on extra-record data | State contends no bias; any error regarding extra-record data was harmless | No reversible bias; error harmless |
| Whether use of extra-record information at sentencing violated due process | Gardner/Porter error; sentencing relied on information not presented in open court | Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Harmless error; no due process violation substantial enough to reverse |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation | Counsel failed to uncover mitigation due to defendant’s refusal to involve family | Decision not to present mitigation was reasonable; waiver of mitigation was valid | No prejudicial ineffective assistance; waiver and investigation deemed reasonable |
| Whether prosecutorial remarks and trial court instructions about mercy prejudiced the death penalty | Prosecutor's comments urged death; improper jury instruction; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Remarks were barred by procedural default or harmless error; proper instructions were given | No reversible prejudice; instructions and record show no fundamental error |
| Whether the death sentence was disproportionate in light of Poirier’s lesser sentence | Disparate sentencing merits relief or remand | Codefendant’s plea to lesser offense nullifies disparate-sentence claim | Proportionality review adequate; no reversal; claim procedurally barred or meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (due process requires notice and opportunity to rebut extra-record information)
- Porter v. State, 400 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1981) (trial judge must provide opportunity to rebut information used in sentencing)
- Vining v. State, 827 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2002) (courts may find harmless error where information is corroborated by trial record)
- Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1996) (harmless error where other evidence supports aggravation)
- Lockhart v. State, 655 So.2d 69 (Fla. 1995) (harmless error despite erroneous information; overwhelming aggravation evidence)
- Grim v. State, 971 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2007) (defense waiver of mitigation does not absolve counsel’s duty to investigate)
- Waterhouse v. State, 792 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 2001) (counsel not ineffective where defendant refused to meet with expert; mitigation investigation still required)
- Booker v. State, 441 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1983) (proportionality review inherent in capital-case appellate review)
- Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2004) (proportionality review need not be expressly stated in every opinion)