Tanzi v. State
94 So. 3d 482
Fla.2012Background
- Tanzi pled guilty and was sentenced to death for the murder of Janet Acosta.
- On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence and noted Tanzi’s confession after arrest.
- During penalty phase, multiple experts testified about Tanzi’s long history of mental problems and childhood abuse.
- Tanzi filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 postconviction motion in 2009, and the postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing on some claims but denied relief.
- Tanzi then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging appellate counsel’s performance; the courts denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction orders afforded meaningful appellate review | Tanzi contends the trial court failed to provide detailed findings | State argues the order contains sufficient factual findings and reasoning | Orders provided sufficient findings and reasoning for meaningful review |
| Ineffective assistance at penalty phase – consistent mental health testimony | Tanzi argues counsel failed to present consistent mental health experts | State contends strategic, non-deficient presentation; evidence still mitigated | No deficient performance or prejudice; evidence supported mitigation |
| Ineffective assistance – failure to investigate/present XYY abnormality | Tanzi claims counsel should have presented XYY evidence to mitigate | State asserts evidence would not change outcome given aggravation and existing mitigation | No prejudice; XYY evidence would not have altered result |
| Ineffective assistance – Dr. Vicary testimony and videotaped confession | Tanzi argues Dr. Vicary’s testimony was deficient and confession not provided | State argues Vicary’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder and strategic actions justified | No prejudice; Dr. Vicary’s testimony did not change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. State, 964 So.2d 121 (Fla.2007) (insufficient postconviction findings require remand for meaningful review)
- Bolin v. State, 41 So.3d 151 (Fla.2010) (standard for ineffective assistance review in Florida mixed with Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2009/2010) (reweigh mitigation evidence against aggravation after Strickland)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (context for evaluating prejudice with totality of mitigation)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2000) (counsel's strategic decisions evaluated against reasonable norms)
- Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203 (Fla.1998) (summary denial proper when allegations are facially insufficient)
- Doorbal v. State, 983 So.2d 464 (Fla.2008) (caution against vague, non-specific allegations in postconviction pleadings)