293 So.3d 448
Fla.2020Background
- In 1990 William Sweet forced entry into Marcine Cofer’s apartment and shot four people, killing 13‑year‑old Felicia; a jury convicted Sweet of first‑degree murder and recommended death, which this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Sweet filed numerous postconviction motions over the next 25 years; this appeal challenges the summary denial of his eighth successive Rule 3.851 motion and denial of a motion to compel public records.
- Key claims in the eighth successive motion: (1) newly discovered evidence / Brady and spoliation claims based on alleged discrepancies in jail/booking records for witness Eric Wilridge; (2) ineffective assistance claims (postconviction counsel’s failure to raise trial‑counsel alcoholism/inexperience and failure to pursue a Giglio claim about witness Solomon Hansbury); (3) a standalone actual innocence claim.
- The State had previously produced Wilridge’s arrest/booking reports and the trial and prior postconviction courts found Wilridge not credible because he changed his story multiple times.
- Sweet also sought an order compelling production of decades of notes stored in former ASA Bernie de la Rionda’s garage, asserting those files might show Hansbury perjured himself.
- The postconviction court summarily denied relief and denied the motion to compel; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Sweet's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady / spoliation re: Wilridge jail records | Discrepancies between previously produced jail records and later CORE/JSO records show suppression/spoliation of Brady material that could exonerate Sweet | Any discrepancy is immaterial; Wilridge’s credibility failures were based on inconsistent statements, not incarceration records | Affirmed denial: alleged records differences are too weak to be material and would not undermine confidence in verdict |
| Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel (failure to raise trial‑counsel alcoholism/inexperience; failure to pursue Giglio re Hansbury) | Postconviction counsel negligently failed to pursue meritorious claims, entitling Sweet to an evidentiary hearing | There is no constitutional right to effective counsel in collateral proceedings; such claims are not cognizable under Rule 3.851 | Affirmed denial: ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claims are not cognizable |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (alcoholism/inadequate preparation) | Trial counsel’s alleged alcoholism and incompetence warranted relief; postconviction counsel’s neglect should excuse timeliness | The claim is untimely and Sweet cannot use postconviction counsel’s omission to revive it; Rule 3.851 exceptions do not allow perpetually belated claim‑raising | Affirmed denial: claim untimely and no valid exception alleged |
| Standalone actual innocence claim | Sweet asserts he is actually innocent and seeks relief on that basis | Florida does not recognize an independent actual‑innocence claim in postconviction proceedings | Affirmed denial: actual innocence is not a cognizable independent postconviction claim in Florida |
| Motion to compel de la Rionda "garage files" | Files might contain notes about Hansbury that would support a Giglio claim; production is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence | Request is a broad fishing expedition—de la Rionda did not prosecute Sweet and evidence tying his notes to Hansbury is speculative | Affirmed denial: request was overly broad and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweet v. State, 624 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1993) (direct‑appeal decision describing facts and affirming conviction and death sentence)
- Sweet v. State, 248 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 2018) (prior postconviction appeal addressing Wilridge evidence and credibility)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence)
- Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012) (Brady materiality standard concerning evidence that could affect confidence in verdict)
- Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885 (2017) (materiality requires that suppressed evidence could put the whole case in a different light)
- Huggins v. State, 788 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2001) (Brady materiality assessed by net effect on confidence in verdict)
- Dailey v. State, 283 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2019) (standards for postconviction relief and public‑records discovery limits)
- Jimenez v. State, 265 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 2018) (prejudice test for spoliation/discovery violations equals Brady test)
- Banks v. State, 150 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 2014) (ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is not a cognizable claim)
- Elledge v. State, 911 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2005) (Florida does not recognize an independent postconviction actual‑innocence claim)
- Chavez v. State, 132 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 2014) (standards for court‑ordered production of public records under rule 3.852)
- Bowles v. State, 276 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 2019) (rule 3.852 is not a tool for fishing expeditions)