Pittman v. State
90 So. 3d 794
Fla.2011Background
- Pittman was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; the postconviction court denied his Rule 3.850 motion after an evidentiary hearing and denied habeas relief.
- Pittman’s claims included Brady, Giglio, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), and newly discovered evidence, raised across guilt and penalty phases.
- The court conducted multiple Huff hearings, two full evidentiary hearings, and several sub-hearings before issuing a comprehensive order denying relief.
- Pittman contends that suppressed or undisclosed information from state witnesses and related notes could have impeached key testimony and affected guilt or penalty.
- The appellate court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Rule 3.850 relief and denied the habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation regarding Carl Hughes | Pittman: suppression of impeachment material and ties to state agents | State: no suppression; notes and impeachment value minimal | No Brady violation; evidence not likely to change verdict |
| Brady violation regarding David Pounds | Pittman: undisclosed PSI and notes impeach Pounds | State: no withholding; discovery possible | No Brady violation; no probability of different verdict |
| Brady/information from handwritten notes of other interviews | Pittman: notes withheld; could affect credibility | State: notes not material; no impact on outcome | No Brady material; no likelihood of different verdict |
| Ineffectiveness claim in guilt phase | Counsel failed to pursue certain witnesses and mitigation | Performance strategic; no prejudice shown | No ineffective assistance; trial counsel actions did not undermine confidence in verdict |
| Newly discovered evidence claim | Carlos Battles info suggests Cindy Pittman witnessed murder; new basis for innocence | Evidence not of Jones standard; unlikely to yield acquittal | Not newly discovered evidence under Jones; no likelihood of acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes def and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (material suppression must undermine confidence in verdict)
- Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (Jones standard for newly discovered evidence in Florida)
- Miller v. State, 926 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2006) (PET scan evidence not likely to yield acquittal/retrial relief)
- Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2006) (prosecutor’s knowledge/possession of evidence for Brady duties)