& SC16-124 David Beasher Snelgrove v. State of Florida and David Beasher Snelgrove v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
217 So. 3d 992
Fla.2017Background
- In June 2000 David Beasher Snelgrove was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and other offenses; jury recommended death (initial penalty phase 7–5) and the trial court imposed two death sentences. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the original death sentences for an undifferentiated advisory recommendation and ordered a new penalty phase.
- At the second penalty phase (2008) Snelgrove presented mitigating evidence including drug addiction, abnormal brain imaging, and an IQ of 70 on WAIS‑III; the jury recommended death separately for each murder by votes of 8–4 and 8–4; the trial court sentenced him to death again.
- Snelgrove sought a Spencer hearing and further testing for intellectual disability; experts’ IQ scores ranged from 70 to 78/75, with conflicting opinions on adaptive deficits and manifestation before age 18; the trial court denied the intellectual‑disability claim and the death sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- In a 3.851 postconviction motion Snelgrove argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Christine Mack (high‑school special‑education administrator) to support intellectual‑disability and mitigation evidence; he also raised other ineffective‑assistance and statutory challenges and filed a habeas petition claiming appellate counsel ineffectiveness.
- The postconviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing; on appeal the Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of ineffective assistance claims and habeas relief but vacated the two death sentences under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State because the jury’s nonunanimous recommendations were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not calling Christine Mack to establish intellectual disability/mitigation | Calling Mack would have shown ESE/EMO placement and supported manifestation before 18 and mitigators; trial counsel was deficient | Counsel reasonably investigated, obtained school records, called family and experts; Mack would be cumulative and not decisive | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; claim denied (affirmed) |
| Intellectual disability under Atkins/Hall (three‑prong test) | Snelgrove argued he met subaverage intellectual functioning, adaptive deficits, and manifestation before 18; Hall requires considering SEM and all prongs conjunctively | State argued evidence supported findings against subaverage functioning and adaptive deficits; school records and expert testimony favored State | Court: No postconviction relief—trial court’s findings supported by competent substantial evidence; denied (majority). Hurst vacatur unrelated to this ruling |
| Retroactive effect of Hurst (Sixth Amendment jury findings/unanimity) | Hurst requires jury, not judge, to find facts necessary for death; unanimous jury findings required for aggravators, sufficiency, and weighing; applies retroactively to defendants final after Ring | State conceded Hurst applies per Mosley; argued harmless error where appropriate | Court: Hurst applies; nonunanimous 8–4 jury recommendations not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; death sentences vacated and remanded for new penalty phase |
| Habeas/appellate counsel ineffective for not raising school‑records error or cumulative error | Appellate counsel failed to raise fundamental/ cumulative errors on direct appeal (including unavailability of school records) | Appellate counsel acted reasonably; claims lacked merit or were not clearly stronger than raised claims | Court: Habeas claims denied; appellate‑counsel claims not meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance framework—performance and prejudice test)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (Sixth Amendment requires jury, not judge, to find each fact necessary to impose death)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida court requires unanimous jury findings on aggravators, sufficiency, and weighing; unanimous recommendation required)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (Court rejects strict IQ cutoff and requires consideration of standard error of measurement and adaptive evidence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (prejudice standard and reasonable probability language in Strickland context)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (jury must find aggravating factors that permit death sentence)
- Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248 (Fla. 2016) (Hurst retroactivity for defendants whose sentences became final after Ring)
- Walls v. State, 213 So.3d 340 (Fla. 2016) (Hall retroactivity and guidance on reassessing intellectual disability hearings)