Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 1038

Smith was convicted of first-degree murder of Officer Darla Lathrem in 2006 and sentenced to death.
On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court summarized the escape plan by Smith and codefendants at Charlotte Correctional Institution and the ensuing homicide.
During the penalty phase, the State presented extensive prior convictions and a mental health/mitigation case; Smith presented defense witnesses and a psychiatrist.
In 2010, Smith filed a postconviction motion under Rule 3.851, raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims and related issues, which the circuit court denied in 2011.
Smith also filed a petition for habeas corpus, raising several capital-scheme and competency arguments; the court denied relief.
This Court affirms the postconviction denial and denial of the habeas petition, with a concurrence disagreeing on evidentiary admissibility of certain statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not objecting to sexual-battery statement	Smith's counsel failed to object; the evidence was prejudicial and not probative.	Sullivan acted reasonably; the evidence was admissible and intertwined with the offense.	No relief; evidence admissible and not prejudicial enough to prejudice trial.
Ineffective assistance for not providing DOC records to mental health expert	DOC PTSD records would have altered the mitigation analysis.	Prejudice not shown; a different diagnosis would not have changed the outcome.	No relief; failure to provide records did not prejudice the penalty phase.
Habeas corpus claims and cognizable relief	Capital-sentencing scheme challenges, cumulative error, and competency claim warrant relief.	Most claims are not cognizable in habeas; appellate-counsel claim is meritless.	Denied; habeas claims not cognizable except appellate-counsel claim; no relief.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance framework; deficient performance and prejudice required)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (U.S. 2010) (reasonable-probability standard for prejudice in capital cases)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2010) (mixed standard of review for prejudice in sentencing)
McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006) (evidence of prior acts and probative value balancing)
Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla. 1994) (evidence of related events admissible to describe surrounding crimes)
Peede v. State, 955 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2007) (inextricably intertwined testimony to explain surrounding events)
Gaskin v. State, 822 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2002) (prejudice analysis for additional information from records)
Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2002) (malingering-like persona; differential diagnosis considerations)
Breedlove v. State, 692 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1997) (psychological testimony and mitigation weight considerations)
Cherry v. State, 781 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2000) (new expert testimony does not automatically warrant relief)
Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975 (Fla. 2009) (standard for reviewing mitigation and prejudice in death cases)