Paul H. Evans v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22072
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Murder-for-hire killing in Florida; Evans convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after a separate Spencer hearing; jury issued advisory death verdict but not which aggravators were found; Florida statute provided eleven aggravators, with pecuniary gain and cold-calculated-and-premeditated as the focus; trial court found both aggravators existed and weighed mitigating evidence; Florida Supreme Court affirmed; Evans sought federal habeas relief raising Ring/Apprendi-type challenges and other claims; district court granted relief on Ring claim but denied others; AEDPA standards govern review of state-court decisions; appellate court reverses Ring relief but affirms other aspects of the district court’s ruling; final disposition: partial reversal of habeas relief on sentencing, other claims denied or affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida’s hybrid jury advisory verdict scheme satisfies Ring v. Arizona | Evans—Ring requires a jury to find aggravating facts | State—jury advisory verdict with great weight by judge complies with Ring | Ring does not require a pure jury-factfinding model; Florida system upheld (no Ring violation) |
| Whether Hildwin remains controlling after Ring’s analysis | Evans argues Ring overruled Hildwin | State—Hildwin remains binding unless expressly overruled | Hildwin remains binding; Ring did not expressly overrule it |
| Whether the courtroom closure during voir dire violated Evans’ public-trial rights under AEDPA | Presley-type concerns; closure violated federal law | State courts’ ruling reasonable under AEDPA | Claim rejected under highly deferential AEDPA review |
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to call seven witnesses during guilt phase | Failure prejudiced Evans and undermined defense | Strategic decision not to call witnesses reasonable; six witnesses not prejudicial | District court’s deference to state court; no prejudice shown for seven witnesses; overall ineffective-assistance claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury determination required for aggravating factors; overruled Walton to extent of allowing judge-only findings)
- Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638 (1989) (Sixth Amendment does not require jury to make every aggravating-finding finding in Florida procedure (pre-Ring))
- Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) (upheld Arizona’s judge-only procedure; distinguished later Ring concerns)
- Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) (upheld Florida judge-based sentencing with jury advisory role; no constitutional requirement for jury to decide aggravating factors)
- Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984) (sentencing proceeding distinguished from trial; Sixth Amendment not violated by judge-based sentencing)
- Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1975) (Tedder standard—jury verdict weighs heavily in sentencing determinations)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (affirms that lower courts may follow earlier decisions while Supreme Court overrules later ones)
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (principle that controlling direct authority controls even if later decisions cast doubt)
- Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) (recognizes Florida’s role of jury in aggravating-factor determination in context of Apprendi framework)