Case Title: Melendez v. State

Citation: 718 So. 2d 746

Docket Number: 88961

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
718 So. 2d 746 (1998)
Juan Roberto MELENDEZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 88961.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 11, 1998.
Rehearing Denied September 15, 1998.
Gregory C. Smith, Capital Collateral Counsel, Northern Region, Tallahassee, and Gail E. Anderson, Special Assistant CCRC, Greensboro, for Appellant.
*747 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Candance M. Sabella, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Juan Roberto Melendez appeals an order of the trial court denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm.
The facts of this case are set out fully in our opinion on direct appeal. See Melendez v. State, 498 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1986). Juan Roberto Melendez was convicted of the first-degree murder and armed robbery of Delbert Baker and was sentenced to death. We affirmed. Id. The trial court summarily denied Melendez's first motion for post-conviction relief in July 1989, and we affirmed. Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 934, 114 S. Ct. 349, 126 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1993). We denied his subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Melendez v. Singletary, 644 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1994). Melendez filed the present motion for post-conviction relief in September 1994, seeking to present newly discovered evidence that another man, Vernon James, was the killer. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in May 1996, wherein Melendez called five witnesses.[1]
The court found that the testimony of these witnesses, "either individually or cumulatively, falls short of the standard required to grant a retrial," and denied Melendez's rule 3.850 motion. Melendez appeals that denial, raising four issues.[2]
Melendez first claims that newly discovered evidence establishes his innocence and the trial court erred in denying him relief. We disagree. This Court set forth the relevant standards in Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1997):
Id. at 1251 (footnotes omitted) (quoting Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915, 916 (Fla.1991), and Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)). In the present case, the trial court addressed this claim at length and concluded:
The record shows that the trial court properly applied the law, and its findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. Consequently, this Court is precluded from substituting its judgment for that of the trial court on this matter. See Blanco, 702 So. 2d  at 1252 (citing Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074 (Fla.1984)). We find no error.
Melendez next claims that the State withheld material exculpatory evidence and knowingly presented false testimony in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We disagree. In order to establish a Brady violation, a defendant must prove the following:
Hegwood v. State, 575 So. 2d 170, 172 (Fla. 1991) (quoting United States v. Meros, 866 F.2d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir.1989)).
In the present case, the trial court addressed this claim at length and concluded:
The trial court applied the right rule of law governing the withholding of evidence under *749 Brady,[3] and competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. We find no error.
Melendez claims that trial counsel provided ineffective representation during the guilt phase of the trial. This claim was raised in his previous motion for postconviction relief and is procedurally barred.[4] In his final claim, Melendez argues that the trial court failed to consider the cumulative effect of newly discovered evidence, the Brady violation, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. These claims were either meritless or procedurally barred; therefore, there was no cumulative effect to consider. We find no error. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the denial of Melendez's rule 3.850 motion.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.
[1]  The first witness, Deborah Ciotti, a prostitute and drug addict at the time of the murder, testified that James told her he was going to rob the beauty shop. After she read about the murder she asked James if he did it and he responded by showing her some money and drugs. He never told her he killed Baker. The second witness, Janice Dawson, lived with James after both were released from prison on unrelated crimes. She described James as a con man, a liar, and a person adept at making people believe what he wanted them to believe. Dawson testified that James told her on many occasions that he had been involved in the murder, but he never said that he killed Baker nor did he say who committed the murder. Sandra Kay James, Vernon's sister, was the third witness. She was addicted to drugs at the time of the murder and is presently serving a thirty-year prison sentence. She claims her brother told her that he set up the robbery and was present when Baker was murdered, but he did not commit the murder. The fourth witness, John Berrien, testified against Melendez at trial in exchange for a negotiated plea agreement. He now claims that the police intimidated and coerced him into testifying falsely: that he had seen Melendez with a .38 caliber pistol in the past and on the night he drove Melendez to Baker's beauty school; that Melendez had a towel when he came out of the beauty school; and that he saw Melendez give George Berrien two rings, a watch, and a gun to take to Delaware. The fifth witness, Dwight Wells, the attorney who represented Melendez's codefendant John Berrien, testified that during the time he represented Berrien, James invited him to visit his jail cell wherein he confessed to Baker's murder. James told Wells that he and Baker were homosexual lovers who had a fight about aggressive sexual advances which resulted in James killing Baker.
[2]  Melendez claims error on the following points: (1) newly discovered evidence shows that Melendez is entitled to a new trial; (2) Brady violations; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase; and (4) failure to consider the cumulative effect of all the newly discovered evidence.
[3]  See, e.g., Hegwood, 575 So. 2d  at 172.
[4]  See Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla.1992); see also Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 913 (Fla.1991) ("A defendant may not raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on a piecemeal basis by filing successive motions.").