Troy v. State, 57 So. 3d 828

Troy was convicted of 2001 first-degree murder and multiple related felonies in Sarasota, including armed burglary and robbery and attempted sexual battery; he received a death sentence following a penalty-phase verdict that reflected several aggravators and mitigators.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Troy’s convictions on direct appeal in 2006 (Troy v. State, 948 So.2d 635).
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, Troy filed an initial postconviction motion, triggering a Huff hearing to determine if an evidentiary hearing was required; the circuit court summarily denied relief.
Troy challenged the postconviction denial on multiple grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase and various constitutional objections to execution procedures.
The court ultimately affirmed the circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief, concluding relief was warranted only to the extent allowed by chapter 27, Florida Statutes (2010) to permit CCRC representation in certain 1983-mode execution claims.
The decision discusses preservation rules, procedural bars, and substantive analyses of the twelve claimed issues, resolving most claims against Troy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failure to prepare mitigation witness	Troy contends Galemore could testify to future prison behavior.	The jury and trial record showed sufficient mitigation; Galemore’s testimony would be speculative.	No relief; no prejudicial impact shown.
Ineffective assistance for failure to question/strike juror Hamblin	Counsel should have probed potential bias and moved to strike.	No actual bias shown; voir dire and open court interview undermined the claim.	No relief; record refutes actual bias.
Ineffective assistance for failing to argue statutory age mitigator	Counsel failed to argue age mitigator effectively.	Evidence of emotional maturity was already presented; counsel not deficient.	No relief; no reasonable probability of different outcome.
Constitutionality of Florida’s lethal-injection protocols	Procedures may be unconstitutional; evidentiary hearing warranted.	Protocol substantially supported by precedent; no need for hearing; Baze/Lightbourne analyses control.	No relief; no inherent constitutional deficiency shown; no hearing warranted.
Section 27.702 and CCRC representation in 1983-mode challenges	Statutory framework precludes CCRC from representing in 1983-mode claims.	Law permitted representation after recent changes; only limited relief warranted.	Relief limited to permitting CCRC representation in 1983-mode execution claims.

Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975 (Fla. 2009) (Evidentiary hearing standards for postconviction claims; facial sufficiency.)
Gonzalez v. State, 990 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 2008) (Facial sufficiency and evidentiary-hearing considerations.)
Davis v. State, 26 So.3d 519 (Fla. 2009) (Review of evidentiary hearings and postconviction standards.)
Ferrell v. State, 29 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2010) (Mixed standard for ineffective-assistance review.)
Lightbourne v. State, 969 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2007) (Lethal-injection protocol scrutiny and governmental deference.)
Darling v. State, 45 So.3d 444 (Fla. 2010) (CCRC representation in 1983-mode challenges under chapter 27.)
Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (Penalty-phase evidentiary considerations.)
Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312 (Fla. 2007) (Actual-bias standard for jurors in deinvolved challenges.)
Miller v. State, 926 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2006) (Procedural bars on postconviction claims; meritless defenses.)
Elledge v. State, 911 So.2d 57 (Fla. 2005) (Juror misconduct procedural bar.)