358 So.3d 1167
Fla.2022Background
- Truehill and two accomplices escaped a Louisiana prison, committed a multi-state crime spree, and kidnapped and brutally murdered Vincent Binder; extensive physical and circumstantial evidence (ATM footage, use of Binder’s bankcard, items and blood matching Binder found in the stolen truck and motel rooms) tied Truehill to the crimes.
- At trial Truehill was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping; jury unanimously recommended death; trial court found aggravators outweighed mitigators and imposed death.
- Truehill’s direct appeal was previously affirmed in Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930.
- Truehill filed a timely Rule 3.851 postconviction motion raising multiple ineffective-assistance, Giglio, newly discovered evidence (MIX13), and other claims; the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief in full.
- Truehill also filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective appellate counsel and requesting proportionality review; the Florida Supreme Court denied postconviction relief and the habeas petition, affirming the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire/ juror questioning | Counsel failed to ask about racial bias, death-penalty views, or ability to consider mitigation | Counsel employed reasonable strategy, asked panel collectively, avoided potentially damaging direct race questions | Denied — no deficient performance |
| Failure to object to prosecutor statements | Counsel didn't object to allegedly improper opening/closing (unsupported factual assertions, "hatchet man") | Opening is not evidence; characterizations were fair comments tied to record | Denied — no deficient performance |
| Handling of witnesses (guilt & penalty phases) | Counsel failed to impeach or prepare several witnesses (misidentifications, preparation) | Strategic reasons (avoid dramatic reidentification; corroborating DNA/evidence) made choices reasonable | Denied — no deficient performance |
| DNA-related ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to obtain FDLE/SWGDAM docs, challenge low-level mixed DNA, or object to Livingston’s methodology | Even if deficient, overwhelming non-DNA evidence (ATM, bankcard use, physical items, full-profile matches) defeats prejudice | Denied — no prejudice shown |
| Giglio claims re: DNA expert Livingston | Livingston omitted disclosure about guideline changes and statistical weights, rendering testimony false/material | No specific false testimony shown; absence of testimony not a Giglio violation; materially immaterial given other evidence | Denied — no Giglio violation |
| Newly discovered evidence (MIX13 studies) | MIX13 shows inconsistency in DNA interpretation that would undermine mixed-sample evidence | Counsel knew of interpretation issues; studies not "new" or would not probably produce acquittal | Denied — fails Jones test/no probable acquittal |
| Summary denials (venue, jury cross-section/voting restrictions, proportionality) | These claims required evidentiary hearings | Claims procedurally barred, legally insufficient, or based on co-defendant plea/deal reasons unrelated to Truehill | Denied — summary denial affirmed |
| Habeas: ineffective appellate counsel & proportionality | Appellate counsel failed to expressly raise federal claims; comparative proportionality warranted given co-defendants’ life sentences | Appellate briefs presented substance of federal claims; exhaustion preserved; proportionality review not required | Denied — no deficient appellate performance; proportionality claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor's false testimony and materiality requirements)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (test for newly discovered evidence requiring probable acquittal on retrial)
- Ventura v. State, 794 So. 2d 553 (materiality standard for Giglio and effect on jury verdict)
- Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (direct appeal affirming conviction and death sentence)
- Sheppard v. State, 338 So. 3d 803 (recognizes strategic reasons to avoid impeaching an in-court identification)