Paul Durousseau v. State of Florida
218 So. 3d 405
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Paul Durousseau was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1999 killing of Tyresa Mack; his DNA was found in the victim and he was one of several similar-offense suspects.
- At trial (2007) the jury recommended death 10–2; the court found four aggravators (prior violent felony, murder during robbery/sexual battery, pecuniary gain, HAC) and numerous nonstatutory mitigators, and sentenced Durousseau to death.
- Direct appeal rejected Durousseau’s claims and affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2010.
- Durousseau filed a Rule 3.851 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to secure additional testing; inadequate voir dire); he abandoned the testing claim and proceeded on voir dire claims at an evidentiary hearing.
- While postconviction review was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida and this Court decided Hurst v. State; Durousseau argued his death sentence was invalid under Hurst.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of ineffective-assistance claims but held Durousseau’s death sentence violated Hurst and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the Court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for using collective (vs. individual) voir dire and failing to follow up | Durousseau: counsel’s collective questioning prevented uncovering juror bias and impaired intelligent use of challenges | State: counsel’s approach was a reasonable strategy; allegations are speculative and lack specifics | Rejected — no deficiency or prejudice shown under Strickland; speculative claims insufficient |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to exhaust peremptory challenges / strike certain jurors (Markley, Norrie, Cummins) | Durousseau: counsel should have struck or further questioned these jurors; failure prejudiced jury composition | State: movant must show an actual biased juror or a specific prospective juror who would have been better; Durousseau identified none | Rejected — movant failed to show actual bias or a specific alternative juror; alternates who did not deliberate cannot show prejudice |
| Whether Hurst error (judge, not jury, finding facts for death) applies retroactively to Durousseau | Durousseau: Hurst requires jury findings for death; his sentence (final 2010) is affected and must be vacated or remedied | State: (implicit) Court must assess harmlessness; statutory remedies argued by dissent | Held — Hurst applies retroactively; Durousseau’s death sentence was imposed unconstitutionally and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; vacated and remanded for new penalty phase |
| Whether statutory section 775.082(2) requires life sentence instead of new penalty phase | Durousseau: (argued) entitlement to relief under Hurst; majority remands for resentencing | State/concurring justice (Perry): statute mandates life if death penalty held unconstitutional | Held — Majority rejects automatic life under §775.082(2) and orders new penalty phase; separate justices concur/dissent on remedy interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision interpreting Hurst error and harmless-error framework)
- Durousseau v. State, 55 So.3d 543 (Fla. 2010) (direct-appeal opinion describing trial facts and issues)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard for constitutional error)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error analysis and focus on effect on the factfinder)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (death-penalty factfinding by jury required)