Leo Louis Kaczmar, III v. State of Florida

Leo Louis Kaczmar III was convicted of first-degree murder and originally sentenced to death; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for a new penalty phase.
At the remanded proceeding, the trial judge told the venire that Kaczmar had been previously sentenced to death and that the Supreme Court had sent the case back for a new sentencing determination.
Kaczmar’s counsel raised the trial court’s disclosure of the prior death sentence for the first time in a motion for rehearing to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court denied rehearing but allowed Kaczmar to raise the disclosure issue in a separate habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Justice Pariente (joined by Justice Quince in dissent) would have granted rehearing (or at least addressed the claim on the existing record) because the trial court’s comment appears on the face of the record and, under Hitchcock, is reversible error; she also relied on Hurst-related error concerns about the reliability of the death recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s disclosure to the venire that defendant had previously been sentenced to death warrants reversal of the penalty-phase proceedings	Kaczmar: The judge’s comment constituted plain, reversible error under Hitchcock and contaminated the jury, warranting a new penalty phase	State: The disclosure issue was not raised on direct appeal and should be pursued via a separate habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Majority: Denied rehearing but allowed the issue to be raised in a separate habeas petition; dissent would have granted rehearing and reversed based on Hitchcock and Hurst concerns
Whether the Court should resolve the disclosure claim now or require a separate habeas filing for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Kaczmar: Efficient to decide now because the error is apparent on the face of the record and appellate counsel’s failure to raise it is ineffective assistance	State: Procedural posture requires habeas review for claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness not raised on direct appeal	Majority: Denied rehearing and directed habeas route; dissent: would decide now and remand for new sentencing

Hitchcock v. State, 673 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1996) (trial courts must not mention a defendant’s prior death sentence on remand; limited instruction mandated)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (requiring jury factfinding for death-penalty elements under Sixth Amendment)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (applying Hurst to Florida law and mandating new sentencing proceedings in many cases)
Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008) (discussing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel standards when errors are apparent on the face of the record)
Mansfield v. State, 758 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2000) (same)