137 So. 3d 969
Fla.2014Background
- Franklin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the December 29, 2001 shooting of Jerry Lawley in Lake County, with additional convictions for related crimes.
- Evidence at trial showed Franklin’s history of violence as a juvenile, including prior armed robbery and a murder; direct appeal affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
- Postconviction motions under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 were filed in 2008; a competency hearing occurred in 2010, and the circuit court found Franklin competent to proceed.
- In 2010–2012, Franklin amended and pursued eleven postconviction claims, plus a habeas petition filed in 2012 asserting various grounds including execution method and potential incompetence at execution.
- The postconviction court denied most claims; an evidentiary panel addressed four claims in depth (competency, penalty-phase assistance, voir dire/venue), while habeas claims were denied.
- This Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of postconviction relief and denied habeas corpus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to proceed in postconviction | Franklin alleged incompetence to proceed | State argued competency supported by evidence | Competency supported; no abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel | Trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigation | Counsel’s investigation and strategy reasonable | No prejudice under Strickland; denial affirmed |
| Voir dire and change of venue | Counsel were ineffective during voir dire and failed to move for venue change | No prejudice; no compelling grounds for venue shift | Claims summarily denied; no error |
| Lethal injection and Eighth Amendment | Execution method violates cruel and unusual punishment | Protocol previously upheld; no new evidence | Claims denied; method upheld |
| Competence at time of execution (habeas) | May be incompetent at execution | Claim not ripe; no relief | Relief denied; claim not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause/applicability in penalties)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 2009) (penalty-phase considerations and mitigation)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2009) (mitigation and prejudice in capital sentencing)
- Dillbeck v. State, 964 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2007) (change-of-venue analysis and prejudice standard)
- McCaskill v. State, 344 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1977) (change-of-venue considerations)