Morris v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 677 F.3d 1117

Morris was convicted in 1999 of first-degree murder, armed burglary of a dwelling, and robbery with a deadly weapon for killing an 88-year-old woman in Lakeland, Florida; he was sentenced to death.
Direct appeal and postconviction proceedings occurred in state court before Morris filed a federal habeas petition.
The federal petition raised fourteen claims, including four targeting penalty-phase issues: bench conference exclusion, failure to advise on the right to testify, drug-use mitigation, and cumulative error.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Morris’s conviction and sentence in Morris I (2002) and denied postconviction relief in Morris II (2006), including denial of ineffective-assistance claims and prejudice findings.
The district court denied the habeas petition, and this Eleventh Circuit affirmed, addressing the four penalty-phase claims and cumulative error under AEDPA deference.
The court held that Morris was not entitled to relief on any of the challenged claims and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel procedurally deficient for excluding Morris from an unrecorded bench conference during the penalty phase?	Morris argues exclusion violated Strickland and deprived him of a fair penalty phase.	Florida Supreme Court found no prejudice from the exclusion under Strickland.	No reasonable prejudice; Florida court's decision not unreasonable under Strickland.
Did trial counsel fail to advise Morris of his right to testify at the penalty phase, constituting deficient performance and prejudice?	Counsel failed to inform Morris of his right to testify in the penalty phase.	Prejudice was not shown; testimony would have been cumulative and not credible.	No prejudicial ineffective assistance; Florida court’s prejudice ruling not unreasonable.
Did the trial court err in not considering Morris's drug use history as mitigating evidence?	Past drug use and addiction should have been weighed as mitigating per Lockett line of cases.	The court weighed the evidence and gave this factor little weight; not error to consider but weight was proper.	Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law; evidence was considered and given little weight.
Does the record support a claim of cumulative error warranting relief?	Aggregate errors deprived him of a fair trial.	No error in any challenged ruling; no basis for cumulative-error relief.	Cumulative-error claim fails; no basis for relief.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (limits of structural error doctrine; bench conference absence not structural)
Morris v. State (Morris I), 811 So.2d 661 (Fla. 2002) (Florida Supreme Court on drug-use mitigation and weighing)
Morris v. State (Morris II), 931 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2006) (Florida Supreme Court on ineffective assistance and prejudice; bench conference prejudice)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify in one's own defense; personal, non-waivable right)
Teague v. V. Johnson, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc; right to testify and standards of review)
Strickland v. Washington (prejudice/prongs applied under AEDPA), — (—) (applied through AEDPA deference in habeas review)
Arizona v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (defendant’s presence at proceedings critical to outcome)
Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1993) (Lockett line on mitigating evidence and weighing)