Smith v. State, 75 So. 3d 205

Derrick Smith, death-sentenced defendant, appeals circuit court’s summary denial of his successive postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851.
This Court previously affirmed conviction and death sentence after retrial in Smith v. State, 641 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1994), and affirmed denial of his initial 3.851 motion in Smith v. State, 931 So.2d 790 (Fla. 2006).
The postconviction court summarily denied claims that FBI letters about bullet lead evidence at retrial were newly discovered and that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by not disclosing information about trial witness Priscilla Walker.
The Eleventh Circuit later held that six Brady claims involved favorable undisclosed evidence and required cumulative materiality analysis under Kyles v. Whitley.
On remand, the Florida circuit court was directed to consider these claims in its analysis.
The majority remands for an evidentiary hearing on the two newly pleaded claims and for consideration of the Walker Brady claim under cumulative materiality analysis; one judge dissents on the remand of the Walker Brady claim as procedurally barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two newly pleaded postconviction claims require an evidentiary hearing.	Smith maintains the FBI bullet lead evidence and Brady information about Walker were newly discovered facts.	State argues the claims are pleaded adequately to warrant an evidentiary hearing.	Yes, remand for an evidentiary hearing on both claims.
Whether the Walker Brady claim must be analyzed under cumulative materiality.	Smith contends the Walker claim should be reconsidered under cumulative materiality per the Eleventh Circuit.	State supports remand to consider the Walker claim in the cumulative framework.	Remand to circuit court for analysis under cumulative materiality.
Whether the Walker Brady claim is procedurally barred and should be affirmed as denied.	Smith asserts no due-diligence claim was required post-deadline, so not barred.	State argues the claim is procedurally barred by Rule 3.851(d)(2)(A).	The majority remands; a separate concurring opinion would affirm the procedural bar.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence to defense)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (cumulative materiality analysis for suppressed evidence)
Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2009) (procedural-bar standards for successive 3.851 motions)
Smith v. State, 641 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1994) (retrial conviction and death sentence affirmed)
Smith v. State, 931 So.2d 790 (Fla. 2006) (initial postconviction relief denial affirmed)