Tavares J. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
213 So. 3d 881
Fla.2017Background
- Tavares J. Wright was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses for a 2000 crime spree (including a drive-by shooting, abduction, robbery, carjacking) and sentenced to death; convictions and death sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Postconviction, Wright filed a Rule 3.851 motion raising ineffective-assistance claims and later, after Hall v. Florida, filed a renewed motion under Florida Rule 3.203 arguing intellectual disability to bar execution.
- Two evidentiary hearings were held (one on the amended 3.851 motion and a later one on the renewed intellectual-disability motion); the postconviction court denied both motions and Wright appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
- Key contested legal issues included whether Wright is intellectually disabled under Florida’s three-prong test (significantly subaverage IQ, adaptive deficits, onset before 18), whether trial/penalty-phase counsel provided ineffective assistance (failure to investigate/present mitigation, failure to impeach jailhouse informants, failure to object to prosecutor remarks), and whether Wright is entitled to relief under Hurst based on his waiver of a penalty-phase jury.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the record, credited credibility findings of the postconviction court and experts, and concluded (1) Wright failed to prove intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence (and failed even by a preponderance), (2) the ineffective-assistance claims lacked Strickland prejudice or were reasonable strategic choices, and (3) Wright’s knowing waiver of a penalty-phase jury bars Hurst relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright is intellectually disabled (3-prong test) | Wright argued IQ and adaptive deficits (including expert testimony) meet statutory test under Hall’s allowance for adaptive evidence within SEM ranges | State argued IQ scores (multiple tests ≥75), concerns about effort/malingering, and lack of concurrent adaptive deficits defeat the claim | Court held Wright is not intellectually disabled; IQ scores and adaptive-functioning evidence fail first two prongs (affirmed) |
| Penalty-phase ineffective assistance — investigation/presentation of mitigation | Wright said counsel failed to acquire records, present lay witnesses, or present experts (Flynn, practice effect, FAS) that would materially change mitigation | State said counsel retained multiple experts, presented mitigation, and additional evidence would be cumulative or was a reasonable tactical choice | Court held no Strickland prejudice or deficient performance; postconviction court’s factual findings supported (claim denied) |
| Guilt-phase ineffective assistance — failure to impeach jailhouse informants and failure to object to prosecutorial comments | Wright argued counsel should have called witnesses to impeach informants and objected to improper propensity-style remarks | State argued counsel reasonably relied on cross-examination and tactical decisions; evidence of guilt was strong | Court held counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown given overwhelming evidence of guilt and prior finding of no fundamental error on prosecutorial comments |
| Hurst / waiver of penalty-phase jury | Wright argued Hurst requires jury findings despite his prior waiver; alternatively waiver was invalid due to alleged intellectual disability | State argued Wright knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his jury; waiver extinguishes Hurst relief; Wright is not intellectually disabled | Court held waiver was valid and knowing; Hurst relief not available; waiver bars Hurst-based relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (recognizing categorical Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (IQ scores must be read with SEM and adaptive evidence permitted when scores fall within margin of error)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (Sixth Amendment requires jury findings for death sentence fact-finding)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (counsel’s obligation to investigate mitigation and effect of mitigation on prejudice analysis)