William James Deparvine v. State of Florida, 146 So. 3d 1071

William Deparvine was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed carjacking for the 2003 Van Dusen killings and sentenced to death.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed direct appeal convictions and sentences after evaluating trial errors and proportionality.
Deparvine filed an initial postconviction motion under Rule 3.851; an evidentiary hearing was held; the circuit court denied relief on numerous claims.
The postconviction court addressed twenty-one ineffective-assistance claims, several constitutional challenges to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, and newly discovered evidence arguments.
Deparvine also filed a habeas corpus petition asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the Court denied relief on all claims.
The Court concludes that the postconviction court’s denials were correct and denies habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IAC claim: failure to call Gibson	Gibson’s credibility would have aided innocence	Counsel reasonably declined due to impeachment risk	Claim not proven; strategic decision reasonable
IAC claim: failure to call Dacosta	Dacosta testimony could undermine State theory	Testimony would be confusing or unhelpful	No deficient performance or prejudice
IAC claim: failure to move for judgment of acquittal / indictment theory	Counsel should challenge indictment scope and vehicle identity	Arguments were raised or rejected on direct appeal; no prejudice	No deficient performance; evidence supported conviction
IAC claims re Lanier, Ferris, and related impeachment	Counsel failed to adequately impeach key witnesses	Counsel impeached effectively; strategic choices were reasonable	No reversible error; claims fail
Constitutional challenges to Florida’s capital sentencing (Ring/Apprendi, proportionality, etc.)	Ring/Apprendi errors and proportionality void death sentences	Claims procedurally barred or meritless; prior felonies sustain verdict	Claims are procedurally barred or meritless; sentences affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard; strong presumption of reasonableness)
Simmons v. State, 105 So.3d 475 (Fla. 2012) (Strickland mixed standard; guidance on postconviction review)
Pardo v. State, 108 So.3d 558 (Fla. 2012) (Eighth Amendment lethal injection framework; no new evidentiary hearing required)
Troy v. State, 57 So.3d 828 (Fla. 2011) (procedural bar and merits analysis for Bar rule and Caldwell-related claims)