& SC14-2039 Dane Patrick Abdool v. State of Florida and Dane Patrick Abdool v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
220 So. 3d 1106
Fla.2017Background
- In February 2006, Dane Abdool drove 17‑year‑old Amelia Sookdeo to a remote area, bound her with duct tape, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire; she died from her injuries.
- At trial Abdool confessed to police and made similar incriminating statements to others; physical and DNA evidence, tire tracks, and evidence of recent burns linked him to the scene.
- A jury convicted Abdool of first‑degree murder; at penalty phase the State presented victim‑pain testimony and victim‑impact statements; the defense presented family testimony and mental/education experts describing learning disabilities, impulse/attention issues, and limited intellectual functioning.
- The jury recommended death 10–2; the trial court found HAC and CCP aggravators and multiple statutory and numerous nonstatutory mitigators, then imposed death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Abdool filed a 3.851 postconviction motion raising ineffective‑assistance claims (guilt‑phase counsel failures), and a habeas petition claiming ineffective appellate counsel (Vienna Convention); the circuit court denied relief and Abdool appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of guilt‑phase claims and denied the Vienna Convention habeas claim, but vacated the death sentence under Hurst and remanded for a new penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress Abdool’s statement | Abdool: counsel should have moved to suppress confession; its admission affected guilt and aggravators | State: other independent evidence (DNA, tire tracks, witness statements, burns) supported conviction and aggravators | Denied — Abdool failed to show Strickland prejudice; suppression would not likely change result |
| Counsel ineffective for not probing anti‑Muslim/religious bias in voir dire | Abdool: counsel should have investigated potential juror bias against perceived Muslims which could taint fairness | State: Abdool was presented as a Christian from Trinidad; no showing a biased juror actually served; strategic decision defensible | Denied — no deficiency or prejudice shown |
| Counsel ineffective for not retaining independent arson expert | Abdool: an independent expert would have rebutted State arson testimony and supported accidental‑fire theory | State: counsel strategically avoided another expert to limit focus on gruesome death; cross‑exposed weaknesses; postconviction expert largely agreed with State | Denied — strategic decision reasonable; postconviction expert did not undermine State’s case; no prejudice |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising Vienna Convention claim | Abdool: as a Trinidadian national, his consular/vienna rights were violated and should have been raised on appeal | State: Vienna Convention claims lack standing and do not require suppression; precedent rejects merits; claim was nonmeritorious | Denied (habeas) — claim meritless; appellate counsel not ineffective for omitting it |
| Whether sentence must be vacated under Hurst | Abdool: jury recommended death 10–2; Hurst requires unanimous jury finding of aggravators/penalty facts | State: no argument that the 10–2 recommendation satisfies Hurst unanimity | Held — Death sentence vacated; 10–2 recommendation violates Hurst; error not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; remand for new penalty phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdool v. State, 53 So.3d 208 (Fla. 2010) (direct‑appeal opinion setting out facts and trial/penalty record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (jury unanimity requirement for capital sentencing and harmless‑error standard discussion)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑error beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
- Kopsho v. State, 209 So.3d 568 (Fla. 2017) (application of Hurst to non‑unanimous jury recommendations)
- State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2000) (factors for evaluating counsel’s failure to retain expert)