Valentine v. State
98 So. 3d 44
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Valentine appeals a circuit court denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion and petitions for habeas corpus.
- Valentine was previously convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of Ferdinand Porche; Romero survived the attack and identified Valentine.
- Evidence at trial included extensive brutality during the killing and post‑crime threats; trial history involved prior appeals and resentencing proceedings.
- Valentine’s postconviction filings asserted numerous ineffective assistance of counsel claims, some subject to an evidentiary hearing, others summarily denied.
- Valentine further challenges appellate counsel and raises a potentially nonripe Eighth Amendment competency issue for execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC for portraying Romero as divorced/married | Valentine claims trial counsel failed to object to Romero’s portrayal as divorced from him and married to Porche. | State contends counsel’s impeachment strategy was a reasonable tactical choice under Strickland. | No deficient performance; strategy reasonable; no relief. |
| IAC for failing to uncover mental health mitigation | Valentine asserts penalty phase counsel failed to adequately investigate mental health mitigation. | State argues counsel had Valentine examined and relied on mental health expert findings; investigation reasonable. | No deficient performance; investigation reasonable and allowed to rely on experts. |
| Summary denial of ineffective assistance subclaims | Valentine argues trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct subclaims warranted an evidentiary hearing. | State maintains record shows entitlement to no relief and summary denial proper. | Summary denial affirmed; no relief. |
| IAC of appellate counsel; habeas on prosecutorial misconduct | Valentine claims appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. | State contends issues were procedurally barred or meritless and not actionable in habeas. | Appellate counsel not ineffective; habeas relief denied on these grounds. |
| Competency at time of execution | Valentine asserts potential future incompetence at execution should be reviewed for preservation. | State asserts claim is not ripe and not entitled to relief. | Not ripe; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2000) (defensive strategy reasonable under Strickland; deference to trial court findings)
- Blackwood v. State, 946 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2006) (mitigation investigation must uncover reasonably available evidence)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate mitigation evidence)
- Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2007) (reliance on qualified mental health expert is permissible)
- Ruiz v. State, 743 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1999) (closing argument bounds; fair comment permissible)
- Griffin v. State, 866 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003) (permissible fair comment from evidence)
- Spann v. State, 985 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 2008) (fair comment doctrine in prosecutorial conduct)
- Bolin v. State, 41 So.3d 151 (Fla. 2010) (mixed legal/factual standard in Strickland review)
- Valle v. State, 705 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 1997) (evidentiary hearing standard in postconviction relief)