Omar Blanco v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
688 F.3d 1211
11th Cir.2012Background
- Blanco was convicted in 1982 of first-degree murder and armed burglary in Florida; death sentence upheld on direct review, collateral relief denied by state courts, and federal habeas petition filed under AEDPA.
- A new penalty phase began in 1994 with court-appointed counsel Moldof and multiple experts; the State sought the death penalty again with evidence of prior violent felonies and aggravating factors.
- During resentencing, the defense obtained discovery of the Emerald Hills 1981 convictions and the State’s deals with Romero and Gonzalez; Blanco presented newly discovered evidence through Rule 3.850 motions.
- Florida courts rejected Blanco’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations; the federal district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, then denied relief in substantial part.
- The district court’s decision was reviewed under AEDPA standards; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding no due process violation or ineffective assistance, and that the Brady claim was meritless.
- This opinion affirms the district court’s denial of Blanco’s federal habeas petition for relief from the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ake claim—right to competent psychiatric assistance at penalty phase | Blanco contends trial court denied due process by not appointing his chosen psychiatrist and by ineffective trial testimony | State argues initial court-appointed experts satisfied Ake; error, if any, was trial-court, not psychiatrist | No due process violation; initial appointments were reasonable and adequate under Ake |
| Ineffective assistance—failure to inform Blanco of State’s life-with-parole offer | Moldof failed to convey offer of life with parole, denying meaningful choice | Record shows Blanco understood the offer and made informed decision; no deficient performance or prejudice | No ineffective assistance; counsel's conduct not deficient or prejudicial under Strickland |
| Brady violation—withholding exculpatory evidence about Emerald Hills convictions and deals | State suppressed material deals with Romero and Gonzalez; evidence could undermine weight of prior convictions | Blanco had equal access to records and knowledge of prior deals; claim defaulted or meritless | Meritless; evidence was known or accessible to Blanco and thus not suppressed under Brady; claim fails under governing law |
Key Cases Cited
- Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (requires evaluating Ake claims by assessing trial court actions at the time of ruling)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (definition of clearly established federal law for AEDPA review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (antiterrorism/deference standard for state-court adjudications under AEDPA)