Spaziano v. StateSpaziano v. State
Joseph Robert Spaziano appeals the trial court‘s denial of his fourth motion for relief under
This is the sixth timе that Spaziano has been before this Court. Spaziano v. Dugger, 557 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1990) (denied habeas corpus relief and rеlief in third rule 3.850 motion); Spaziano v. State, 545 So.2d 843 (Fla. 1989) (denied relief in second rule 3.850 motion); Spaziano v. State, 489 So.2d 720 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 107 S.Ct. 598, 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) (denied relief in first rule 3.850 motion); Spaziano v. State, 433 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1983), aff‘d, 468 U.S. 447, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984) (affirmed death sentence); Spaziano v. State, 393 So.2d 1119 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1037, 102 S.Ct. 581, 70 L.Ed.2d 484 (1981) (affirmed conviction but remanded for resentencing).
Spaziano argues that, under the principles of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the state has an obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence, including evidence which negates a defendant‘s guilt, and that the state violated those principles in four instances, specifically: (1) the state failed to disclose informаtion that Joe Suarez, not Joe Spaziano, telephoned the victim the night before the murder; (2) the state failed to disclose that Joe Suarez and the victim were together on the night of her disappearance; (3) the state failed to disclose information about the suspect Lynwood Tate; and (4) the state failed to disclose the details оf an investigator‘s interview with Tony Dilisio which occurred prior to an interview that was disclosed. In denying this fourth motion under
The instant motion is time-barred by the two-year provision of
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 . Spazianо has shown no justification for failure to raise the instant claim in his previous motion, and the suсcessive motion presently before the court is inappropriate for consideration and must be summarily denied. Hall v. State, 541 So.2d 1125, 1126 n. 1 (Fla. 1989); Clark v. State, 533 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 1988).
First, we agree with the state‘s contention that Spazianо‘s motion contains no allegation that the facts upon which the claims are basеd could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and we agree with the trial court that these claims are procedurally barred since they were raised in a fourth postconviction motion, which was filed beyond the two-year limitаtion of
With regard to the claim that the policе failed to disclose information concerning their investigation of Lynwood Tate, we emphasize that the prosecution is not required to “make a complete and dеtailed accounting to the defense of all police investigatory work on a сase.” Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d 706, 713 (1972). The fact that Tate was a suspect early in the investigation, though this theory was lаter abandoned, is not information that must be disclosed under Brady. Finally, with regard to the investigator‘s earlier interview with Tony Dilisio in October, 1974, we can find no material inconsistencies when we compare the notes of that interview to the subsequent interview that defense counsel discovered through the normal discovery process, and to Dilisio‘s testimony. We find that the invеstigator‘s notes of the interview conducted in October of 1974 would have had no impact on the outcome of this trial and that there was no Brady violation.
As the procedural history of this case indicates, Spaziano‘s conviction and sentence have been reviewed numerous times by this Court, and the United States Supreme Court has on one occasion reviewed Spaziano‘s claims on the merits, particularly the appropriateness of his death sentence, and has affirmed the imposition of that sentence. See Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984). We find no merit to Spaziano‘s present motion.
For the reаsons expressed, we affirm the trial court‘s denial of Spaziano‘s fourth
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which BARKETT, J., concurs.
KOGAN, Justice, concurring specially.
While I concur with the majority that Spaziano‘s current
BARKETT, J., concurs.