Wickham v. State
124 So. 3d 841
Fla.2013Background
- Wickham was sentenced to death for the 1986 first-degree murder of Morris Fleming; trial evidence included premeditation and CCP aggravators; prior mental health issues were presented in mitigation but court found no mitigating circumstances.
- Postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850 and a habeas petition were filed; an evidentiary hearing occurred in 2010 after remand, with the circuit court denying all claims.
- The State’s Brady/Giglio claims involve co-defendants Tammy Jordan, Wallace Boudreaux, John Hanvey, Michael Moody, and Matthew Norris/Sylvia Wickham; issues center on suppression or misstatement of evidence/testimony.
- Wickham also challenged ineffective assistance of counsel (mitigation, written findings, closing arguments), competency, cumulative error, and a mental-illness-as-bar-to-execution theory, all denied.
- The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the postconviction denial and denied the habeas petition, with extensive discussion of each Brady/Giglio issue and IAC claim.
- Key procedural posture: direct appeal affirmed conviction and death sentence; postconviction denied; remand and new hearing occurred; final appellate disposition is an affirmance of the postconviction denial and denial of habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation regarding Tammy Jordan notes | Wickham argues the state withheld plea-negotiation notes. | State contends notes not material; impeachment already present. | No Brady violation; materiality not shown. |
| Brady failure re Tammy Jordan’s prior arrest | Tammy’s prior arrests should have been disclosed | Information was available; defense could have obtained it | Not preserved; no suppression; no prejudice. |
| Giglio claim re Tammy Jordan’s pretrial statement | State knowingly presented false/misleading testimony | Statement not material; defense impeached it | Not preserved; not material. |
| Brady violation regarding Boudreaux evidence | Withheld plea, escape attempt, and pre-sentence report | Evidence was cumulative; not suppressed; no prejudice | Not proven; no Brady violation. |
| Giglio claim re Boudreaux’s testimony about benefits | Prosecutor failed to correct discounts on benefits | Testimony was not false; no materiality | Not preserved; not material. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (standard for materiality in Brady claims)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality in Brady/Giglio context)
- Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2003) (Giglio materiality; false testimony must be material)
- Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2004) (mixed standard of review for Brady/Giglio; de novo law application)
- Floyd v. State, 18 So.3d 432 (Fla. 2009) (preservation and materiality principles for Brady)