& SC12-2465 Brett A. Bogle v. State of Florida & Brett A. Bogle v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
213 So. 3d 833
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Brett Bogle was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, burglary and retaliation; jury recommended death and trial court sentenced him to death (conviction and sentence affirmed on direct appeal).
- Physical and forensic evidence at trial: crushed skull from blunt force, semen in victim consistent with Bogle’s DNA, a pubic hair on Bogle’s pants matching the victim, and eyewitness/timing evidence placing Bogle near the scene shortly after the crime.
- Postconviction, Bogle filed an amended Rule 3.851 motion and later a habeas petition asserting Brady/Giglio violations, multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (guilt and penalty phases), newly discovered DNA evidence (Y-STR from fingernails; STR testing of vaginal swabs/underwear), conflict of interest, and prosecutorial misconduct.
- At evidentiary hearings, the State’s postconviction STR testing matched Bogle as the major male contributor to vaginal swabs; Y-STR fingernail testing did not include Bogle and was a mixed profile with at least two males.
- The trial court denied relief on all postconviction claims; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of the 3.851 motion and denied habeas relief, and held Hurst/Ring-based relief inapplicable retroactively to Bogle’s final conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio: suppressed evidence about possible accomplices (notes/memos re: Guy Douglas/"Andy") | Suppressed notes/memos and other materials were favorable and would have undermined confidence in verdict | State argued evidence was either not suppressed, not material, or of minimal impeachment value given strong inculpatory evidence | Court found some suppression but ruled not material — no reasonable probability of different result; Brady/Giglio claims denied |
| Brady re: FBI/hair analyst bench notes & contamination | Malone's bench notes and evidence-handling reports could impeach hair-match reliability and integrity of pants evidence | State: notes were transcription errors/minimal, discipline reports showed only potential risk not actual contamination; defense could have obtained some materials with diligence | Court found no Brady violation (or no materiality); Giglio claims re: false testimony denied |
| Ineffective assistance — guilt phase (failure to investigate accident, hair testing, alibi/deposition evidence) | Counsel failed to investigate car-accident injuries, obtain bench notes, retain DNA/hair experts, and call witnesses that would undermine guilt/motive | State: trial counsel’s choices were reasonable; available mitigation/evidence would not have produced reasonable doubt given DNA and other strong evidence | Court applied Strickland, deferred to factual findings, and denied relief (no prejudice shown) |
| Ineffective assistance — penalty phase (mitigation investigation/presentation) | Counsel allegedly failed to develop/present substantial mitigation (family history, mental illness, accident effects) that would have avoided death sentence | State: much mitigation was presented at second penalty phase; additional postconviction evidence was cumulative and would not overcome strong aggravators (prior violent felony, sexual battery, avoid arrest, HAC) | Court denied relief — no Strickland prejudice; aggravators weighty and Hurst inapplicable retroactively |
| Newly discovered evidence — postconviction DNA (Y-STR fingernails; STR on vaginal swabs/underwear) | Y-STR from fingernails excluded Bogle; raised reasonable doubt as to perpetrator; other postconviction testing could change outcome | State: STR testing of vaginal swabs and underwear matched Bogle as the major contributor; fingernail Y-STR was mixed and could not be tied to perpetrator or time of deposition | Court held fingernail testing satisfied diligence prong but failed second prong (would not probably produce acquittal); STR results reinforced conviction; relief denied |
| Conflict of interest (public defender previously represented others connected to case) | Representation by Public Defender who earlier represented or had connections to other witnesses/parties created an actual conflict affecting defense | State: no actual conflict shown or adverse effect on counsel’s performance | Court applied Cuyler standard; found no actual conflict and denied relief |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / ineffective appellate counsel / Ring/Hurst claim | Prosecutor’s comments and other trial rulings deprived Bogle of fair trial; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising various issues; Ring/Hurst require resentencing | State: comments were fair argument; many claims were unpreserved/procedurally barred or meritless; Hurst/Ring not retroactive to cases final before Ring | Court found misconduct claims procedurally barred or meritless, appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising nonmeritorious/unpreserved claims, and Hurst/Ring relief denied as nonretroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogle v. State, 655 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1995) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentence)
- Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2011) (articulating Brady/Giglio standards and review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor’s obligation regarding false testimony/impeachment)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (actual conflict requirement for Sixth Amendment claim)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find aggravating factors supporting death sentence)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Florida sentencing scheme defective to extent jury did not make necessary factual findings)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (admissibility test for novel scientific evidence)