Mendoza v. State
87 So. 3d 644
Fla.2011Background
- Mendoza was convicted of first-degree felony murder and related offenses in 1994, and sentenced to death after a penalty-phase trial.
- This is Mendoza’s third appellate proceeding arising from his initial postconviction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.
- Following direct appeal, postconviction proceedings were remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claims against trial counsel.
- The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in 2008 and denied postconviction relief in 2009.
- Grounds on appeal include guilt-phase ineffective assistance (defense theory consistency, witness omission, gunshot residue evidence) and penalty-phase ineffective assistance (mitigation investigation/presentation).
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of amended postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guilt-phase: whether trial counsel was ineffective for inconsistent defense theory | Mendoza claims inconsistency in asserting who shot Calderon undermined credibility. | Counsel’s strategic, reasonable decisions did not fall outside professional norms. | No deficient performance; no prejudice shown. |
| Guilt-phase: whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling Lazaro Cuellar | Lazaro would have testified to negate the robbery, supporting defense. | Strategic decision not to call Lazaro; Lazaro unavailable to testify. | No prejudice; decision deemed strategic and not ineffective. |
| Guilt-phase: whether counsel was ineffective for gunshot residue preparation/presentation | Counsel failed to adequately prepare and present GSR evidence to challenge shooter identity. | Any errors were nonprejudicial given felony murder conviction and other evidence. | No prejudice; insufficient link to outcome. |
| Guilt-phase: cumulative error | Combined guilt-phase errors warrant reversal under cumulative error doctrine. | Individual errors are meritless; cumulative error does not arise. | Rejected; no cumulative error affecting guilt phase. |
| Penalty-phase: ineffective assistance for failure to investigate/present mitigation | Counsel failed to investigate Cuba history, mental health, neuropsychology, and other mitigation. | Counsel’s approach was reasonable; additional investigation would not have changed outcome. | No deficient performance or prejudice; mitigation presentation was sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (ABA guidelines inform reasonable performance; strategic choices after investigation)
- Ferrell v. State, 29 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2010) (reiterates mixed Strickland standard and standard of review for ineffectiveness)
- Everett v. State, 54 So.3d 464 (Fla. 2010) (affirmation of appellate de novo review on legal conclusions with factual support)
- Hutchinson v. State, 17 So.3d 703 (Fla. 2010) (procedural bar and review of ineffective-assistance arguments)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard for evidentiary errors)