& SC13-2422 Gerhard Hojan v. State of Florida & Gerhard Hojan v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
212 So. 3d 982
Fla.2017Background
- Gerhard Hojan was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder, armed kidnapping, and armed robbery; jury recommended death 9–3 and trial court imposed two death sentences. On direct appeal, convictions and sentences were affirmed.
- Hojan filed an initial Rule 3.851 postconviction motion asserting multiple claims (trial-court error, ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered forensic evidence, challenges to jury contact rules and lethal-injection protocol, and constitutional challenges). The circuit court summarily denied relief and this appeal followed.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the circuit court properly denied an evidentiary hearing and whether various claims were procedurally barred, insufficiently pleaded, or without merit.
- The Court affirmed denial of postconviction relief on all asserted claims except it found Hurst error required relief: after briefing on Hurst v. Florida and Florida’s Hurst decision, the Court concluded Hurst applied and was not harmless given the nonunanimous 9–3 death recommendation.
- The Court vacated Hojan’s death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase, while denying habeas relief and otherwise affirming the circuit court’s summary denial of claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial-court evidentiary and procedural errors (Frye challenge to forensic methods; Miranda waiver; Vienna Convention; jury-selection procedure) | Hojan argued these errors required relief or an evidentiary hearing | State argued claims were insufficiently pleaded, previously litigated on direct appeal, or refuted by the record | Court affirmed summary denial: Frye/forensics claim conclusory; Miranda claim barred/previously rejected; Vienna Convention inapplicable; jury-selection was ratified by Hojan and not a due-process violation (but counsel warned against off‑record deals) |
| Ineffective assistance for advising waiver of mitigation / lack of mental-health evaluation (Ake) | Hojan contended counsel failed to advise consequences of waiving mitigation and failed to secure competent mental-health evaluation | State relied on record waivers, notarized instruction to stop mitigation investigation, Spencer colloquies, and procedural default for Ake claim | Court held claim procedurally barred or refuted by record; counsel not deficient; no prejudice shown given multiple strong aggravators |
| Newly discovered evidence re: forensic science (2009 NAS report) | Hojan claimed NAS report undermined forensic evidence and warranted a hearing or relief | State argued report is not newly discovered evidence that would likely produce acquittal and that claim was insufficiently pleaded | Court held NAS report did not meet newly discovered-evidence test and claim lacked merit; summary denial affirmed |
| Hurst error (jury unanimity for death‑eligibility findings) | Hojan argued Hurst v. Florida requires jury findings and his 9–3 recommendation renders sentence invalid | State argued error could be harmless given aggravators and other record facts | Court held Hurst applies retroactively; with a 9–3 jury recommendation the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — death sentences vacated and new penalty phase ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Hojan v. State, 3 So.3d 1204 (Fla.) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentences)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Sixth Amendment requires jury, not judge, to find facts necessary for death sentence)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court applying Hurst and outlining harmless‑error standard)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (capital sentencing facts that increase penalty must be found by a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless‑error analysis and the reasonable‑possibility standard)
- Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2001) (defendant’s right to be present at critical stages; waiver and ratification principles)