& SC14-2106 Thomas Bevel v. State of Florida and Thomas Bevel v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
221 So. 3d 1168
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Thomas Bevel was convicted (guilt phase) of two 2004 first-degree murders and an attempted murder; jury recommended death 8–4 for Stringfield and 12–0 for Sims. Trial court imposed death sentences for both. Bevel’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal (Bevel v. State).
- Penalty-phase mitigation presentation was limited: family testimony and Dr. Harry Krop (IQ 65; some deficits but no organic brain damage or major mental illness). Trial counsel spent about 15–17 hours on mitigation and began most investigation ~12 days before trial.
- Postconviction proceedings (Rule 3.851) developed additional mitigation: juvenile/residential program records, allegation of childhood sexual abuse, evidence of traumatic brain injury/frontal-lobe impairment, PTSD/depression/anxiety, substance use, neglect, and unstable family history—many discovered by a mitigation specialist during postconviction investigation.
- Postconviction court denied relief (found no prejudice and rejected intellectual disability and Brady claims); Bevel appealed and filed habeas claiming ineffective appellate assistance for not raising prosecutorial-misconduct arguments on direct appeal.
- The Florida Supreme Court applied Hurst v. Florida retroactivity (per Mosley), held Hurst error required vacatur of Stringfield death sentence (8–4 jury), found Hurst harmless for the Sims sentence (12–0 jury), and concluded penalty-phase counsel was constitutionally ineffective in investigation and presentation of mitigation, warranting a new penalty phase for the Sims murder as well. Habeas petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bevel) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application/retroactivity of Hurst to Bevel’s sentences | Hurst requires jury unanimity on critical findings and applies retroactively; Bevel’s 8–4 recommendation for Stringfield is Hurst error | Hurst may not apply or is harmless for unanimous recommendations | Hurst applies retroactively; Stringfield sentence vacated (8–4 nonunanimous); Sims sentence affirmed against Hurst challenge (12–0 unanimous) |
| Ineffective assistance of penalty‑phase counsel (mitigation investigation) | Counsel performed deficiently (late, minimal hours, failed to obtain/produce records, failed to develop mitigation and give experts full background), causing prejudice when mitigation is reweighed against aggravators | State: counsel relied on qualified expert, some records were known or cumulative, postconviction experts more favorable but speculative; any missing records would not have changed outcome | Counsel deficient for unreasonable mitigation investigation; prejudice established under Strickland when mitigation is reweighed; new penalty phase ordered (vacating both death sentences) |
| Habeas claim re ineffective appellate counsel for not raising prosecutorial‑misconduct comments | Appellate counsel omitted meritorious misconduct issues (impermissible character, inflammatory "brutal and savage," and Golden Rule references) | Comments were fair comment on evidence or isolated/non‑reversible; preserved record lacked contemporaneous objections; issues would have been meritless on appeal | Habeas denied: appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless/unpreserved claims |
| Prejudice standard and effect of strong aggravators | Bevel: even strong aggravators do not defeat relief when substantial mitigation was unpresented | State: aggravators and evidence of brutal crimes outweigh additional mitigation; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Court applies reweighing test (Porter/Williams) and finds mitigation sufficient to undermine confidence; prejudice established for Sims after reweighing, so new penalty phase required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bevel v. State, 983 So.2d 505 (Fla. 2008) (direct‑appeal opinion describing facts, trial mitigation, and jury recommendations)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (holding Florida’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional because judge—rather than jury—made critical findings necessary for death sentence)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision explaining jury unanimity and remedial requirements post‑Hurst)
- Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248 (Fla. 2016) (holding Hurst applies retroactively to cases final after Ring)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence and to present reasonably available mitigation)
- Simmons v. State, 105 So.3d 475 (Fla. 2012) (counsel not excused for tactical choice when no adequate investigation was done)