Parker v. State
89 So. 3d 844
Fla.2011Background
- Parker was convicted of murder in 1982 and sentenced to death in Florida.
- On direct appeal Parker challenged the conviction and penalty phase; Parker I affirmed both.
- In 1998 Parker obtained a new penalty phase due to State suppression of exculpatory evidence suggesting a codefendant shot the victim; Parker V granted a new penalty phase.
- At the new penalty phase, the State relied on Johnson’s testimony and Parker’s May 7, 1982 statement; Parker’s postconviction motion challenged counsel performance, suppression, and trial conduct.
- The postconviction court denied relief; Parker appealed, raising ineffective assistance claims, Brady and Giglio-related claims, and evidentiary-hearing issues.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding defense counsel deficient for stipulating to the admissibility of Parker’s May 7 statement, and finding Brady/withholding issues but no prejudice warranting relief, with cumulative analysis leading to denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stipulation to admissibility of May 7 statement | Parker claims counsel erred by stipulating to hearsay evidence showing initiation of May 7 interview. | State asserts stipulation was proper because evidence admissible and record supports initiation. | Counsel deficient; stipulation improper and prejudice shown cumulatively. |
| Impeachment and cross-examination of Williams | Counsel failed to adequately impeach Williams with prior convictions and evidence. | Counsel had impeachment material; additional convictions would be cumulative and not necessary. | No reversible error; impeachment was adequately developed and cumulative evidence unnecessary. |
| Cooperation agreement with Johnson and Brady/Giglio implications | Complete terms of Johnson's cooperation agreement were not disclosed; Brady/Giglio violations could occur. | Complete terms were not disclosed; however impeachment impact was limited and not outcome-determinative. | Brady violation found; withholding constituted reversible error in cumulative prejudice analysis, but no relief due to overall analysis. |
| Cumulative prejudice and impact on death sentence | Cumulative errors undermine confidence in the death sentence. | Even with errors, sufficient evidence supports death sentence; no prejudice shown. | |
| 0 | No prejudice; cumulative errors do not warrant relief; sentence affirmed. | ||
| Admission of expert testimony on counsel performance | Expert Anderson should testify on trial counsel's performance. | Casey precedent limits such testimony; any error harmless. | No reversible error; exclusion harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975 (Fla. 2010) (penalty-phase prejudice under Strickland requires confidence in death sentence)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (death penalty proportionality for major participant with reckless indifference)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (major participation and reckless indifference can justify death sentence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) ( suppression of favorable impeachment evidence violates due process)
- Parker v. State, Parker VI, 873 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2004) (Penalty-phase evidentiary issues and postconviction claims context)
- Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2001) (distinction between direct-appeal and postconviction Strickland claims)
- Casey v. State, 969 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (limits on expert testimony about trial strategy in postconviction proceedings)
- Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2003) (Giglio standard for false testimony materiality)
- Hunter v. State, 29 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2008) (impeachment evidence value in evaluating prejudice)