& SC13-1787 Steven Douglas Hayward v. State of Florida and Steven Douglas Hayward v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
183 So. 3d 286
Fla.2015Background
- Steven Hayward was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for the 2005 killing of a newspaper deliveryman; his death sentence and convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Key evidence: eyewitness Roosevelt McDowell heard the victim shout "I don't have no more" and saw a black male leave the scene; Hayward’s blood was found on the victim’s car and on items near the scene; Hayward made multiple statements to police admitting involvement and that he had a gunshot wound; the murder weapon (.22 revolver) was later recovered with Hayward’s blood in the firing chamber.
- At penalty phase the State proved prior violent-felony convictions (including a prior murder) and murder during robbery/for pecuniary gain; the defense presented limited mitigation including family testimony and a mental health evaluation (Dr. Riordan) that noted antisocial traits but recommended life as viable.
- Hayward’s rule 3.851 postconviction motion alleged (inter alia) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for deficient mitigation investigation/presentation, Brady/Giglio/Strickland claims related to handcuff/transport policy and witness impeachment, and evidentiary errors during the postconviction hearing; an evidentiary hearing was held on selected claims.
- The circuit court denied relief; Hayward appealed and separately petitioned for habeas corpus alleging ineffective appellate counsel for not challenging the competency of McDowell. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Hayward’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at penalty phase for failure to investigate/present mental-health and childhood mitigation | Counsel failed to develop extensive family-abuse, neuropsychological, and background mitigation; more testing (and presentation) would likely have produced a life sentence | Counsel reasonably investigated, presented a "humanizing" strategy, consulted an expert (Dr. Riordan), and feared additional testing might confirm antisocial traits and be aggravating; many mitigation facts were already presented | No deficient performance; even if some mitigation was omitted, no prejudice shown under Strickland—aggravators outweigh additional mitigation; relief denied |
| Brady/Giglio and ineffective assistance regarding handcuff/transport policy | Officer Mace falsely testified there was a written policy requiring handcuffing of transported persons; failure to obtain the written policy deprived counsel of impeachment material and violated Brady/Giglio; counsel ineffective for not seeking it | No evidence State knew testimony was false; practice was memorialized in training though not in a written policy; Mace told Hayward he was not under arrest and the statements at scene were spontaneous; any error harmless and not prejudicial | No Giglio/Brady violation; even if counsel erred, no Strickland prejudice—statements were spontaneous and additional station statements (after Miranda) corroborated guilt; relief denied |
| Failure to challenge competency/credibility of key eyewitness (Roosevelt McDowell) | McDowell gave inconsistent accounts and had health issues; counsel and appellate counsel should have moved to disqualify or raised as fundamental error | Discrepancies go to credibility/weight, not competence; counsel cross-examined McDowell; no legal basis shown to disqualify; appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless claim | Witness presumed competent; inconsistencies did not show incompetency or fundamental error; counsel’s performance not deficient and no prejudice; habeas denied |
| Denial of full and fair postconviction hearing (various evidentiary rulings) | Court improperly excluded certain mitigation (mother’s prior abuse, brother’s South Carolina history), barred perpetuation of a federal inmate’s testimony by deposition, and prevented inquiry into prosecutor’s letter and file transfer issues | Exclusions were within trial court discretion (evidence focused on witnesses’ character or was cumulative); rule-based limits on perpetuation; State did not access trial files and no actual prejudice shown; letter was protected work product | No due-process violation; rulings within court’s discretion or harmless; motion to disqualify State Attorney’s Office denied for lack of actual prejudice; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel must conduct reasonable mitigation investigation; strategic choices must be informed)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (courts must reweigh mitigation against aggravation when assessing prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (same: assessing totality of mitigation evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework referenced on direct appeal)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (clarified primary-purpose test for admission of victim’s statements)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor’s duty to correct false testimony and materiality standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Brady materiality and disclosure obligations)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady burden and analysis)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Florida: strategic decisions after investigation are entitled to deference)