Waterhouse v. State
82 So. 3d 84
Fla.2012Background
- Waterhouse, a death-sentenced inmate, sought postconviction relief via successive Rule 3.851 motion after a January 2012 death warrant; the circuit court denied the first claim and held an evidentiary hearing on the second; Waterhouse challenged destruction of evidence and offered Sotolongo affidavits alleging Brady/Giglio violations and newly discovered evidence; the narrow issue was whether the second claim was timely and properly pled and whether the evidence would likely produce acquittal; the postconviction court found due diligence but held Sotolongo’s testimony would not probably yield acquittal and denied relief; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, denied a stay of execution, and rejected the destruction-of-evidence claim as procedurally barred and successive; the Court also addressed the Brady/Giglio analysis and rejected the claim on credibility and prejudice grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Destruction of evidence claim properly pled and timely | Waterhouse (destruction) argues the destruction violated due process and retroactive rights | State contends claim is improperly pled, time-barred, and not retroactive | Claim properly denied as procedurally barred and untimely |
| Newly discovered evidence: due diligence and likely acquittal | Waterhouse contends Sotolongo’s affidavit was newly discovered and could yield acquittal | State argues due diligence satisfied but evidence unlikely to produce acquittal | Due diligence satisfied; however, evidence not likely to produce acquittal; claim rejected |
| Brady/Giglio implications of Sotolongo testimony | Waterhouse asserts Brady/Giglio violations due to nondisclosure | State contends no suppression and testimony not material | Brady claim rejected; no prejudice shown; cumulative impact insufficient to undermine verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterhouse v. State, 429 So.2d 301 (Fla.1983) (initial direct appeal; death sentence affirmed)
- Waterhouse v. State, 522 So.2d 341 (Fla.1988) (Waterhouse I/II postconviction context; DNA testing issues)
- Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008 (Fla.) (Waterhouse III review of sentence on resentencing)
- Waterhouse v. State, 792 So.2d 1176 (Fla.2001) (Waterhouse IV; Rule 3.850/3.853 context)
- Waterhouse v. Moore, 838 So.2d 480 (Fla.2002) (Habeas corpus proceedings)
- Mungin v. State, 79 So.3d 726 (Fla.2011) (newly discovered evidence; concerns about false police reports)
- Hitchcock v. State, 991 So.2d 337 (Fla.2008) (standard for evaluating newly discovered evidence; due diligence)
- Huggins v. State, 788 So.2d 238 (Fla.2001) (collateral counsel standard of investigation; due diligence)
- Hernandez Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82 (Fla.2011) (Brady materiality and standard of review)