188 So. 3d 799
Fla.2016Background
- In June 2000 Neil Salazar was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, burglary and related offenses for the killing of Evelyn Nutter and the attempted killing of Ronze Cummings; jury recommended death and trial court imposed death sentence.
- Co-defendant Julius Hatcher testified against Salazar after reaching a non-death plea deal; Hatcher’s taped statements and live testimony were key at trial.
- Salazar’s direct appeal was denied by this Court and certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. He later filed a Rule 3.851 postconviction motion, raising numerous claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, intellectual disability, and juror and prosecutorial-error claims.
- After an evidentiary hearing the postconviction court denied most claims but concluded counsel’s penalty-phase investigation was deficient; the State conceded deficiency at oral argument on penalty-phase mitigation investigation.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of guilt-phase claims and the intellectual-disability claim (finding sufficient evidence against disability), but held Salazar established both deficiency and prejudice for penalty-phase ineffective assistance and remanded for a new penalty phase. The Court denied the habeas petition alleging appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise juror and prosecutor-comment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at penalty phase (failure to investigate/present mitigation) | Salazar: counsel failed to investigate school/medical records, head injuries, low IQ and adaptive deficits; better mitigation would likely change sentence | State: trial strategy focused on humanization; any omitted evidence would not produce reasonable probability of different result (but conceded deficiency) | Court: counsel was deficient and prejudice shown; remand for new penalty phase |
| Intellectual disability as bar to death penalty | Salazar: IQ scores (67–68) and adaptive deficits prove ID before age 18 | State: higher IQ test (72), evidence of adequate adaptive functioning and school performance rebut ID | Court: IQ evidence met first prong but Salazar failed to prove adaptive deficits and manifestation before 18; ID claim denied |
| Preservation / appellate counsel deficiency re: for-cause challenge to juror Ms. W | Salazar: trial court erred in denying for-cause strike; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it | State: defense failed to preserve — defense later used peremptory, did not renew objection before jury sworn, and expressly agreed to panel | Court: claim not preserved and no proof of actual biased juror; appellate counsel not ineffective; habeas denied |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising prosecutor's closing comments | Salazar: prosecutor shifted burden and used improper sarcasm undermining fairness | State: comments challenged were largely fair attack on defense theory; defense did not contemporaneously object, so only fundamental error would reverse | Court: comments did not produce fundamental error given record; appellate counsel not ineffective; habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (counsel must conduct thorough mitigation investigation; prejudice assessed by totality of mitigation)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel unreasonable if they fail to investigate known mitigation leads)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (IQ score is not dispositive; consider margin of error and adaptive evidence)
- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (forcible abduction does not bar U.S. prosecution)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (presence in court bars jurisdictional defense based on abduction)
- Carratelli v. State, 961 So. 2d 312 (requirements to preserve juror-for-cause challenges; need to renew objection before jury sworn)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (addressed capital sentencing procedure; cited for legal context on penalty phase review)