Taylor v. State
120 So. 3d 540
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Taylor, II was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon; jury recommended death (10–2) and the trial court imposed death, which this Court upheld on direct appeal.
- Postconviction, Taylor sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851; after an evidentiary hearing on some claims, the postconviction court denied relief.
- Taylor filed a postconviction motion with multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) in penalty phase mitigation, venue, and prosecutorial comments, and a Ring v. Arizona challenge; the court held an evidentiary hearing on some subclaims and denied relief on all.
- Taylor then filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective appellate counsel for not raising Campbell/Ferrell-based weighing requirements on direct appeal.
- This Court reviews IAC claims under Strickland v. Washington with a mixed standard of review, deferring to factual findings supported by competent evidence and reviewing legal conclusions de novo.
- The Court affirms the postconviction court’s denial of relief and denies the habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC for not using mental health expert in penalty phase | Taylor asserts Dr. Krop could establish statutory mitigators and should have testified | Counsel reasonably decided not to use Dr. Krop to avoid damaging cross-examination and because evidence did not support statutory mitigators | No relief; no prejudice; strategy reasonable and no demonstrable prejudice |
| IAC for failing to move for a change of venue | Taylor claims prejudicial pretrial publicity required venue change | No impartial jury issues; few prospective jurors know the case and those who did could be impartial | No relief; no prejudice; denial affirmed |
| IAC for failing to object to prosecutorial comments in guilt phase | Prosecutor’s comments inflamed jury and bolstered credibility of witnesses | Many comments accurately reflected evidence; lack of objection not prejudicial given standard for reversible error | No relief; objections not prejudicial; no reversal warranted |
| Ring claim / capital sentencing scheme | Death sentence violated Ring v. Arizona | Claim procedurally barred and meritorious only if both aggravators and circumstances were improperly weighed; not the case here | Claim rejected; Ring challenge denied; scheme upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bolin v. State, 41 So.3d 151 (Fla. 2010) (Strickland mixed standard; defer to factual findings; prejudice required)
- Orme v. State, 896 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2005) (contextual, perspective-based evaluation of counsel’s performance)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (mitigation investigation required; not hindsight evaluation)
- Gaskin v. State, 822 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2002) (great latitude in use of experts; strategic decisions favored)
- Franqui v. State, 965 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2007) (trial court’s use of experts and mitigation decisions reviewed)
- Suggs v. State, 923 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2005) (no prejudice shown where no major psychiatric disorder)
- Dillbeck v. State, 964 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2007) (prejudice showing in ineffective assistance claims)
- Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1990) (guidelines for weighing mitigating vs. aggravating factors; requires express weighing in writing)
- Ferrell v. State, 653 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1995) (requires detailed weighing and sufficient evidence for meaningful review)
- Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 2000) (receded portion regarding weighting of mitigating factors)
- Evans v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 699 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2012) (federal Ring litigation; not binding on Florida Supreme Court)