151 So. 3d 1132
Fla.2014Background
- Victim Howard Wetherell was beaten to death in July 2001; items including a fire poker and a green Mercury Sable were taken. DNA from a cigarette butt at the scene matched Richard England; codefendant Michael Jackson (whose DNA was on another butt) implicated England after crashing the missing car.
- England was indicted for first-degree premeditated and felony murder and robbery. At trial the State introduced physical evidence and testimony from jailhouse informant Steven Diehl, fence Reynaldo DeLeon, Jackson, and others. Jury convicted and recommended death 8–4; court found four aggravators (felony probation, prior violent felony, murder during robbery, HAC) and sentenced England to death.
- England’s direct appeal was unsuccessful and certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. He then filed a Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and a habeas petition to the Florida Supreme Court. The circuit court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing; England appealed and filed habeas here.
- Postconviction claims included ineffective assistance at guilt phase (failure to expose Diehl as a state agent) and penalty phase (inadequate mitigation investigation); new mental-health testimony (bipolar/homophobic-rage) was presented postconviction but conflicted with other experts and England’s own statements.
- Habeas claims alleged ineffective appellate counsel for not raising speedy-trial revocation and failure to require a Faretta inquiry; several other claims were asserted but many were procedurally barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (England) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Guilt-phase ineffective assistance for not exposing Diehl as state agent | Trial counsel failed to ask questions that would show Diehl acted as a state agent, so Diehl’s testimony was tainted | Counsel reasonably investigated, deposed Diehl, moved to suppress, and there was no evidence Diehl was a state agent; trial questioning was adequate | Denied — counsel not deficient and no prejudice given cumulative incriminating evidence |
| 2) Penalty-phase ineffective assistance for failing to develop/present mitigation | Counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence (childhood abuse, mental illness, sexual abuse, homophobic-rage theory) | Much of the new mitigation was cumulative or speculative; expert psychiatric opinion conflicted and statutory mitigators not established | Denied — no reasonable probability of a different sentence when weighing aggravators and mitigation |
| 3) Ineffective appellate counsel for not challenging speedy-trial waiver revocation | Appellate counsel should have argued trial court abused discretion by allowing England to revoke waiver | England unequivocally requested a speedy trial; court did not abuse discretion in granting it | Denied — claim meritless so appellate counsel not ineffective |
| 4) Ineffective appellate counsel for not arguing failure to conduct Faretta inquiry | Trial court failed to inquire before permitting self-representation-related actions | No unequivocal request to represent himself occurred; Faretta not triggered | Denied — no trial-court error, so no appellate deficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (consider totality of mitigation when assessing prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (same; mitigation review principles)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (requiring Faretta inquiry only after unequivocal self-rep request)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (constitutional rule cited re: capital punishment limits)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (constitutional limits on capital sentencing procedures)
- Overton v. State, 976 So. 2d 536 (prejudice analysis when testimony is cumulative)
- Dennis v. State, 109 So. 3d 680 (framework for weighing mitigation and prejudice)
- Simmons v. State, 105 So. 3d 475 (reasonableness of counsel’s investigatory actions)
- Valle v. Moore, 837 So. 2d 905 (appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise nonmeritorious issues)
- Wickham v. State, 124 So. 3d 841 (ineffective appellate counsel cognizable in habeas)
- Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664 (standards for ineffective appellate assistance)
- Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (ineffective appellate assistance standard source)
- Curtis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1234 (trial court not required to grant continuance over informed defendant’s insistence on speedy trial)
- Charlot v. State, 85 So. 3d 1176 (right to speedy trial equates to objecting to continuance; Faretta inquiry not required where no unequivocal request)
- Bell v. State, 965 So. 2d 48 (cumulative-error analysis)
- Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (habeas not for relitigation of issues raised earlier)
- Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387 (procedural bars to relitigation)
- Gamble v. State, 877 So. 2d 706 (appellate counsel claim analysis)