330 So.3d 867
Fla.2021Background
- Terry Smith was convicted of three first-degree murders (Robinson, Gibson, Keenan); sentenced to death for Gibson and Keenan and life for Robinson; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Key evidence: eyewitness Breon Williams saw Smith shoot Robinson; multiple witnesses (Peterson, Ullysses Johnson, Edward Haney) testified Smith confessed on separate occasions; Smith’s palm print was on the back door; ten-millimeter casings found at the scene.
- Smith filed a Rule 3.851 postconviction motion raising 16 claims; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on nine claims, denied relief as to the guilt phase, and granted a limited new penalty phase under Hurst.
- At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel explained numerous strategic choices (e.g., playing additional interrogation video to undermine detectives, stipulating to certain exhibits to avoid waste, not hiring forensic experts because Smith had confessed to counsel).
- The trial court found many of Smith’s factual assertions (including that he gave counsel an alternate innocence story) not credible; it rejected claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and found the Haney recantation unreliable and not likely to produce an acquittal.
- This Court affirmed the denial of guilt-phase relief and denied Smith’s habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; several appellate claims were deemed procedurally barred or meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for playing additional interrogation video (detectives’ references to lack of remorse) | Kuritz’s cross-play of interrogation admitting detectives’ comments about Smith’s lack of remorse was prejudicial and deficient | Counsel played it strategically to impeach detectives and show misconduct; not prejudicial to a presence/identity defense | Counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance or prejudice; claim denied |
| Stipulation to booking photos and handwritten statements (State’s exhibits 12, 85, 86) | Admission constituted hearsay / unduly prejudicial booking-photo evidence | Written statements were cumulative or prior consistent statements; photos were closely cropped and not treated as mug shots | No prejudice: statements had already been testified to or admissible; counsel not ineffective; claim denied |
| Failure to investigate/challenge forensic evidence (who shot Keenan) | Counsel should have retained experts to show Keenan could have been shot by AK-47 rather than Smith’s ten‑mm | Smith confessed to counsel that he shot all three with a ten‑mm; available expert opinions would be equivocal | Decision not to retain experts was reasonable; no prejudice shown; claim denied |
| Failure to impeach key witnesses (Williams, Dukes, Brewer, Peterson; not calling Vaughn) | Counsel failed to adequately expose motive/credibility, prior convictions, and conspiratorial communications | Counsel cross-examined and highlighted motives/plea deals; decision not to call Vaughn was strategic and approved by Smith | Record refutes deficiency; strategic choices reasonable; Smith consented re Vaughn; no prejudice; claim denied |
| Failure to object to State’s elicitation of character/retaliation evidence (Haney, witnesses’ fear) | Testimony about Haney staying with Smith and witnesses’ fear improperly admitted to show bad character/uncharged acts | Evidence explained why witnesses delayed/cooperated and was probative of credibility; limited and not inflammatory | Admission was relevant to credibility; objections would have been overruled; no prejudice; claim denied |
| Failure to raise Confrontation Clause challenge to medical examiner’s testimony/photos | Dr. Giles testified to others’ autopsy findings and used their photos, violating Confrontation Clause | A testifying medical expert may rely on non-testifying examiners’ reports/photos and form independent opinions; subject to cross-examination | No Confrontation Clause violation; objection would be futile; claim denied |
| Failure to advance Smith’s alternate defense (unknown shooter) | Counsel ignored Smith’s account of an unknown shooter and instead presented a denial/shifted blame to others | Trial court found Smith never gave that account to counsel; counsel’s strategy reflected Smith’s confessions and physical evidence | Trial court credited counsel; strategic choice reasonable given confession, palm print, eyewitness; claim denied |
| Newly discovered evidence — Haney recantation | Haney recanted his trial testimony that Smith confessed to him and now says prior testimony was false | Haney’s recantation was inconsistent with trial record and other confessions; unreliable | Trial court found recantation incredible; even if credited, remaining confessions and eyewitness evidence preclude probable acquittal; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (failure to raise various evidentiary/procedural errors) | Appellate counsel omitted claims alleging trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct | Many issues were meritless, harmless, unpreserved, or duplicative of postconviction claims; appellate counsel not ineffective for omitting them | Habeas claims fail: appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless or unpreserved claims; several claims procedurally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Smith v. State, 139 So. 3d 839 (Fla. 2014) (direct-appeal decision setting out facts and convictions)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Hurst rule regarding sentencing; relevant to resentencing order)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000) (strategic decisions by counsel do not constitute ineffective assistance when reasonable)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (limits on scope of counsel’s duty to investigate)
- Darling v. State, 966 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2007) (recognizing reasonable strategic decisions regarding challenges to evidence)
- Patrick v. State, 246 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 2018) (counsel’s decision not to pursue a challenge can be reasonable given corroborating facts)
- Ventura v. State, 794 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2001) (no prejudice where hearsay duplicates properly admitted testimony)
- Brooks v. State, 175 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2015) (medical expert may rely on another examiner’s autopsy materials without violating Confrontation Clause)
- Sweet v. State, 248 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 2018) (recantations are highly unreliable; trial court’s credibility determinations entitled to deference)