Robert Eugene Hendrix v. State of Florida, 136 So. 3d 1122

Hendrix, a death-sentenced inmate, seeks relief from a circuit-court denial of his successive 3.851 postconviction motion.
He faced execution on April 23, 2014, for two murders, two conspiracies, and one armed burglary; direct appeal upheld most convictions.
Florida Supreme Court previously denied postconviction and habeas relief in 2005; current motion follows a death warrant in 2014.
Hendrix challenged trial judge bias via a disqualification motion that the court denied; direct appeal found no actual bias.
He asserted ineffective assistance for failure to present mitigation; claims were previously raised and rejected, procedurally barred on successive motion grounds.
He alleged a Brady violation for withholding impeachment evidence; court previously found no prejudice and barred as relitigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Bias of the trial judge	Hendrix argues bias in the trial judge.	State asserts lack of bias; prior ruling affirmed no partiality.	Procedurally barred; no merit.
Ineffective assistance—mitigation	Counsel failed to present mitigation evidence.	Strategic decisions not to present evidence were reasonable.	Procedurally barred; no merit.
Brady impeachment evidence	State concealed impeachment material about a confidential informant.	Evidence withholding was improper but prejudice insufficient.	Procedurally barred; no prejudice shown.
Ability to file additional postconviction motions	Circuit court improperly limited future motions.	No newly discovered evidence presented; motion lacks merit.	Without merit.

Hendrix v. State, 908 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2005) (prior postconviction denial; habeas relief denied)
Pardo v. State, 108 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 2012) (procedural bar for relitigating claims on successive motions)
Van Poyck v. State, 116 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 2013) (procedural bar; relitigation of claims)
Hendrix v. State, 637 So. 2d 916 (Fla.) (direct appeal upheld convictions; some charges vacated)