Pinkney Carter v. State of Florida, 175 So. 3d 761

Pinkney Carter was convicted in 2005 of three first-degree murders (Reed, Reed's daughter Smith, and Pafford); jury recommended death for two counts (Pafford and Reed) and life for Smith; trial judge imposed two death sentences after a Spencer hearing.
Trial counsel presented an extensive penalty-phase mitigation case comprised of ~27 lay witnesses (family, employers, school, military, jail personnel) and retained three mental-health experts who were evaluated but not called at penalty phase.
Postconviction counsel obtained a new expert (Dr. Francisco Gomez) who opined Carter met two statutory mental-health mitigators (extreme mental/emotional disturbance; substantial impairment) and identified risk/protective factors linking childhood trauma to later violence.
Carter filed a Rule 3.851 motion alleging (inter alia) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present mental-health expert testimony at penalty phase/Spencer and for failing to move for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief, and Carter appealed; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding counsel's investigation and penalty-phase strategy reasonable and no prejudice shown, and no basis for a change of venue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling mental-health experts to prove statutory mitigators and rebut CCP aggravator	Carter: experts would have shown extreme mental/emotional disturbance and substantial impairment and undermined CCP, producing a reasonable probability of a different sentence	State/Trial counsel: experts' evaluations were not supportive; presenting them would have opened door to violent prior acts; instead counsel reasonably pursued a humanizing "good guy" strategy via lay witnesses	Held: No ineffective assistance — counsel conducted thorough investigation, made an informed strategic choice, and Carter failed to show prejudice under Strickland
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for change of venue due to pretrial publicity	Carter: pervasive inflammatory publicity required change of venue and counsel's failure was deficient	State/Trial counsel: voir dire showed limited extrinsic knowledge, jurors said they could be impartial, and no evidence was produced at evidentiary hearing proving pervasive prejudice	Held: No ineffective assistance — record shows impartial jury was seated, postconviction counsel produced no supporting publicity evidence, and motion would not likely have been granted

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (expert tying mitigation themes together may not be prejudicial where lay testimony permits logical connections)
Carter v. State, 980 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008) (direct appeal affirming convictions/sentences and setting factual background)
Dillbeck v. State, 964 So. 2d 95 (ineffective-assistance claim for failing to move for change of venue requires showing the motion would have been granted)
Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278 (pretrial publicity alone is insufficient; change of venue depends on voir dire and community prejudice)