Walton v. State
77 So. 3d 639
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Walton was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each count.
- Direct appeal affirmed convictions but vacated death sentences due to failure to confront co-defendants’ statements during penalty phase.
- Postconviction history included an initial 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; relief denied on appellate review.
- Walton filed a second successive postconviction motion under rule 3.851 seeking relief based on Porter v. McCollum purported retroactivity.
- The postconviction court summarily denied as untimely and procedurally barred; the issue is whether Porter mandates retroactive relief and tolling rules apply.
- This appeal challenges the retroactivity and timing analysis under Witt and related standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Porter applies retroactively under Witt. | Walton argues Porter creates retroactive law. | State contends Porter is not a retroactive, fundamental rule. | No retroactive application under Witt. |
| Whether Porter constitutes a fundamental change in law demanding retroactive relief. | Porter represents a fundamental change in Strickland jurisprudence. | Porter is a mere application/ evolution of Strickland, not a fundamental change. | Porter does not constitute a fundamental change. |
| Whether Walton’s second successive 3.851 motion was time-barred and properly denied without an evidentiary hearing. | Rule 3.851(d)(1)-(2) time limits and retroactivity justify relief. | Motion filed after deadline; Porter does not qualify for retroactive relief; no hearing required. | Motion properly denied as untimely and not retroactively cognizable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 924 (Fla. 1980) (retroactivity requires major constitutional changes or fundamental significance)
- Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (U.S. 2009) (Porter is not a fundamental change; applies Strickland to facts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prejudice and deficient performance standards for ineffective assistance)
- Ventura v. State, 2 So.3d 194 (Fla. 2009) (rule 3.851 procedural framework; de novo review on pure law)