Case Title: Hildwin v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC09-1417

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-1417 
____________ 
 
PAUL CHRISTOPHER HILDWIN,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[June 2, 2011] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Paul Christopher Hildwin was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for 
the murder of Vronzettie Cox.  This Court affirmed Hildwin‘s conviction and 
sentence of death on direct appeal.  Hildwin v. State (Hildwin I), 531 So. 2d 124, 
129 (Fla. 1988).  Hildwin was subsequently granted a new penalty-phase trial on 
the basis that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to 
adequately investigate, prepare, and present mitigating evidence.  Hildwin v. 
Dugger (Hildwin II), 654 So. 2d 107, 110-11 (Fla. 1995).  After the new penalty-
phase proceeding was held in 1996, Hildwin was again sentenced to death, and this 
Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal.  Hildwin v. State (Hildwin III), 727 
 
- 2 - 
So. 2d 193, 198 (Fla. 1998).  Hildwin then filed a motion for postconviction relief 
attacking his death sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, 
which was denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing. 
 
This appeal follows from the denial of postconviction relief alleging 
ineffective assistance of counsel in the second penalty-phase proceeding.1  For the 
reasons explained in this opinion, we affirm the trial court‘s denial of Hildwin‘s 
motion for postconviction relief. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The following facts were set forth in this Court‘s 1988 decision on direct 
appeal from the conviction and sentence: 
Appellant was arrested after cashing a check purportedly 
written to him by one Vronzettie Cox, a forty-two-year-old woman 
whose body had been found in the trunk of her car, which was hidden 
in dense woods in Hernando County.  Death was due to strangulation; 
she also had been raped.  Evidence indicated she had been killed in a 
different locale from where her body was found.  Her purse, from 
which some contents had been removed, was found in dense woods, 
directly on line between her car and appellant‘s house.  A pair of 
semen-encrusted women‘s underpants was found on a laundry bag in 
her car, as was a sweat-stained wash rag.  Analysis showed the semen 
and sweat came from nonsecretor (i.e., one who does not secrete 
blood into other bodily fluids).  Appellant, a white male, was found to 
be a nonsecretor; there was testimony that white male nonsecretors 
make up eleven percent of the population. 
The victim had been missing for four days when her body was 
found.  The man she lived with, one Haverty, said she had left their 
                                         
 
1.  Because the order concerns postconviction relief from a sentence of 
death, this Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § (b)(1), Fla. Const. 
 
- 3 - 
home to wash clothes at a coin laundry.  To do so, she had to pass a 
convenience store.  Appellant‘s presence in the area of the store on the 
date of her disappearance had come about this way: He and two 
women had gone to a drive-in movie, where they had spent all their 
money.  Returning home early in the morning, their car ran out of gas.  
A search of the roadside yielded pop bottles, which they redeemed for 
cash and bought some gasoline.  However, they still could not start the 
car.  After spending the night in the car, appellant set off on foot at 9 
a.m. toward the convenience store near the coin laundry.  He had no 
money when he left, but when he returned about an hour and a half 
later, he had money and a radio.  Later that day, he cashed a check 
(which he later admitted forging) written to him on Ms. Cox‘s 
account.  The teller who cashed the check remembered appellant 
cashing it and recalled that he was driving a car similar to the victim‘s. 
The check led police to appellant.  After arresting him the 
police searched his house, where they found the radio and a ring, both 
of which had belonged to the victim.  Appellant gave several 
explanations for this evidence and several accounts of the killing, but 
at trial testified that he had been with Haverty and the victim while 
they were having an argument, and that when Haverty began beating 
and choking her, he left.  He said he stole the checkbook, the ring, and 
the radio.  Haverty had an alibi for the time of the murder and was 
found to be a secretor. 
Appellant made two pretrial statements that are pertinent here.  
One was a confession made to a cellmate.  The other was a statement 
made to a police officer to the effect that Ms. Cox‘s killer had a tattoo 
on his back.  Haverty had no such tattoo, but appellant did. 
 
Hildwin I, 531 So. 2d at 125-26.  Hildwin was convicted of first-degree murder.  
During the penalty phase, Hildwin did not present any mental health expert 
testimony, but did present lay witness testimony that ―was quite limited.‖  Hildwin 
II, 654 So. 2d at 110 n.7.  The testimony ―revealed that Hildwin‘s mother died 
before he was three, that his father abandoned him on several occasions, that 
Hildwin had a substance abuse problem, and that Hildwin was a pleasant child and 
 
- 4 - 
is a nice person.‖  Id.  Following the penalty phase, the jury unanimously 
recommended death.  The trial court followed the jury‘s recommendation, finding 
four aggravators and no mitigation.  This Court affirmed Hildwin‘s conviction and 
sentence on direct appeal.  Hildwin I, 531 So. 2d at 129. 
Hildwin then filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of 
Criminal Procedure 3.850 and a habeas petition.  See Hildwin II, 654 So. 2d at 
108.  Among other things, Hildwin asserted that his counsel was ineffective for 
failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence.  Id. at 109.  An evidentiary 
hearing was held in which Hildwin put on testimony from experts and lay 
witnesses to show that counsel‘s investigation and presentation of evidence was 
deficient and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.  This Court agreed, 
noting that Hildwin had ―presented an abundance of mitigating evidence which his 
trial counsel could have presented at sentencing,‖ including two mental health 
experts that the trial court found ―most persuasive and convincing,‖ as well as 
―substantial lay testimony.‖  Id. at 110 & n.8.  This Court vacated Hildwin‘s 
sentence of death and remanded for a new penalty-phase trial.  Id. at 111. 
The new penalty-phase trial was held in 1996.  At the trial, Hildwin 
presented two mental health experts, Drs. Maher and Berland, who testified that 
Hildwin had a brain injury or impairment and was mentally ill.  Lay witnesses also 
testified that Hildwin had a horrible childhood, which included physical and 
 
- 5 - 
mental abuse inflicted by his father, suicide attempts, and abandonment and 
neglect. 
After the new penalty-phase trial, the jury voted to recommend the death 
sentence by a vote of eight to four, and the trial court sentenced Hildwin to death.  
In its resentencing order, the trial court found four aggravators: (1) Hildwin was 
under a sentence of imprisonment at the time of the murder; (2) he had previously 
been convicted of prior violent felonies; (3) the murder was committed for 
pecuniary gain; and (4) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel 
(HAC).  Hildwin III, 727 So. 2d at 194. 
In contrast to the first penalty phase in which no mitigation was found, the 
trial court found two statutory mitigators, both of which it assigned ―some weight‖: 
(1) Hildwin was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance 
at the time of the murder; and (2) his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his 
conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially 
impaired.  Id.  Finally, the trial court found five nonstatutory mitigators, all of 
which it also assigned ―some weight‖: (1) Hildwin had a history of childhood 
abuse, including sexual abuse by his father; (2) he had a history of drug or 
substance abuse; (3) he had organic brain damage; (4) he had the ability to do well 
in a structured environment like prison; and (5) his type of mental illness was 
readily treatable in a prison setting.  Id. 
 
- 6 - 
In reviewing proportionality, this Court explained the trial court‘s evaluation 
of the mitigation: 
While the trial court accorded ―some weight‖ to a variety of statutory 
and nonstatutory mitigators, the trial court explained at length why it 
did not find the psychological mitigating evidence to be particularly 
compelling: 
There is also the problem of [the psychological 
experts] not having talked to sufficient people who knew 
the defendant around the time of the crime.  Dr. Berland 
testified that he had talked to no one who knew the 
defendant after 1979, and thus didn‘t talk to any people 
who had been around the defendant close to the time of 
the murder.  John Hildwin, who presented perhaps the 
most emotional testimony as to the abuse his brother 
suffered as a child, indicated that he had not seen the 
defendant since 1971. 
Next, it should be noted that the experts, though 
generally agreeing with each other, subtly differ with one 
another in their analysis.  Dr. Maher opines that the 
defendant had an impaired ability to appreciate 
wrongness and conform his conduct based on a severe 
mental defect.  Dr. Berland does not talk specifically 
about the defendant‘s ability to appreciate the 
wrongfulness of his actions and to conform his action to 
the requirements of law, but is of the opinion that the 
defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime.  Dr. 
Berland believes that the defendant was under the 
influence of mental or emotional disturbance at the time 
of the crime; however, Dr. Berland was not able to say 
that the defendant was under the influence of ―extreme‖ 
emotional disturbance at the time, but only classified the 
defendant as suffering from a ―mild to moderate‖ 
condition.  Dr. Maher says that the defendant was under 
the influence of an ―extreme‖ mental or emotional defect 
at the time of the crime.   
 
There is also a practical conflict between the 
opinions of the doctors, and the psychological picture 
 
- 7 - 
they paint of the defendant, and with the way the 
defendant presented himself in court, as well as the way 
others who knew him close to the time of the crime 
described him.  Dr. Maher spoke with a woman, Cynthia 
Wriston, who had known the defendant for some time 
and was with the defendant the night before the murder, 
who described the defendant as a ―nice guy.‖  Dr. 
Berland testified that the defendant should not ever be 
properly described as ―a nice guy.‖  Violet Hoyt 
described the defendant as ―always polite.‖  She further 
said that Paul was okay around her, and never gave her 
any trouble.  Henry Hoyt said the defendant was very 
nice to him whenever he saw him.  Patricia Lee Hildwin, 
who married the defendant while he was in prison, 
testified that she had never seen the defendant hit 
anybody and never saw the defendant with a quick 
temper.  She said that she never observed any truly 
bizarre behavior from the defendant.  Dr. Berland had 
testified that [the] defendant would not have been fun to 
be around, and that he would have been an angry, 
irritable, volatile, explosive person. 
Id. at 197-98.  This Court affirmed the sentence on direct appeal.  Id. at 198. 
 
Hildwin filed a postconviction motion attacking the performance of his 
counsel in the second penalty-phase proceeding.  The trial court granted an 
evidentiary hearing on the following two claims raised in the motion: (1) 
ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel for failing to investigate, prepare, 
and present mitigating evidence; and (2) ineffective assistance of penalty-phase 
counsel in failing to object to improper remarks made by the prosecutor in closing 
 
- 8 - 
argument.2  At the evidentiary hearing, the following witnesses testified: Dr. 
Richard S. Greenbaum (an expert on posttraumatic stress disorder); Dr. Robert M. 
Berland (one of the mental health experts who testified at resentencing); William 
Hallman (resentencing co-counsel); and Richard Howard (resentencing lead 
counsel).3 
ANALYSIS 
 
Hildwin raises two issues for this Court‘s review: (1) ineffective assistance 
of penalty-phase counsel for failing to investigate, prepare, and present mitigating 
                                         
 
2.  The following claims raised in the motion were summarily denied: (1) 
violations of chapter 119, Florida Statutes, because various agencies have not 
furnished public records to the records repository or to defense counsel; (2) 
ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel for failing to investigate, prepare, 
and present evidence regarding the circumstances of the offense; (3) ineffective 
assistance of penalty-phase counsel for failing to request an instruction pursuant to 
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), pertaining to Hildwin‘s 
ineligibility for parole; (4) the death sentence was based on consideration of two 
invalid aggravating circumstances and penalty-phase counsel was ineffective in 
failing to request a limiting instruction on the same; (5) the resentencing jury was 
preconditioned to recommend death because the jury heard that Hildwin had been 
previously found guilty, and penalty-phase counsel was ineffective for failing to 
request an instruction pursuant to Hitchcock v. State, 673 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1996), 
to advise the resentencing jury on its proper role; (6) Florida‘s death penalty statute 
is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and (7) 
Hildwin may be incompetent at the time of execution. 
 
3.  William Hallman and Richard Howard are now circuit court judges. 
 
- 9 - 
evidence, and (2) ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel in failing to 
object to improper remarks made by the prosecutor in closing argument.4 
Following the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Strickland v. 
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), this Court has held that for ineffective 
assistance of counsel claims to be successful, two requirements must be satisfied:  
First, the claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the 
lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably 
competent performance under prevailing professional standards.  
Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be 
demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the 
proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined.  A court 
considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a 
specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is 
clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied. 
                                         
 
4.  We reject the State‘s contention that Hildwin has abandoned or waived 
the claims at issue in this case.  The delay between the filing of the postconviction 
motion and the evidentiary hearing was caused by the unique and unusual 
procedural posture of this case.  While the postconviction motion at issue was 
pending in the trial court, DNA testing was conducted on two items found at the 
crime scene.  The DNA test excluded Hildwin as the source of the DNA profile 
found on the items, and Hildwin moved for postconviction relief on the basis of the 
test results.  The trial court denied relief, and this Court agreed in a four-three 
decision, holding that ―[a]lthough the newly discovered DNA evidence is 
significant, this evidence is not ‗of such nature that it would probably produce an 
acquittal on retrial.‘ ‖  Hildwin v. State (Hildwin IV), 951 So. 2d 784, 789 (Fla. 
2006). 
The DNA results are also the subject of a pending all-writs petition in this 
Court, which seeks to have the DNA profile compared to DNA profiles in CODIS 
(the FBI-maintained national DNA databank) and the Florida statewide databank 
for the purpose of identifying the source of the DNA.  See Hildwin v. State, No. 
SC10-1082 (Fla. pet. filed June 9, 2010). 
 
- 10 - 
Schoenwetter v. State, 46 So. 3d 535, 546 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Maxwell v. 
Wainwright, 490 So. 2d 927, 932 (Fla. 1986)). 
To establish the deficiency prong under Strickland, the defendant must prove 
that counsel‘s performance was unreasonable under ―prevailing professional 
norms.‖  Morris v. State, 931 So. 2d 821, 828 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Strickland, 466 
U.S. at 688).  ―A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort 
be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the 
circumstances of counsel‘s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from 
counsel‘s perspective at the time.‖  Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.  The defendant 
carries the burden to ―overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the 
challenged action ‗might be considered sound trial strategy.‘ ‖  Id. (quoting Michel 
v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)).  ―Judicial scrutiny of counsel‘s 
performance must be highly deferential.‖  Id.  In Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 
1037, 1048 (Fla. 2000), this Court held that ―strategic decisions do not constitute 
ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and 
rejected and counsel‘s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional 
conduct.‖ 
―Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by 
whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court‘s confidence in the 
sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and 
 
- 11 - 
the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.‖  Stewart v. State, 37 So. 3d 
243, 253 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1013 (Fla. 2009)).  
That standard does not ―require a defendant to show ‗that counsel‘s deficient 
conduct more likely than not altered the outcome‘ of his penalty proceeding, but 
rather that he establish ‗a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] 
outcome.‘ ‖  Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447, 455-56 (2009) (alteration in 
original) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94).  ―To assess that probability, [the 
Court] consider[s] ‗the totality of the available mitigation evidence . . .‘ and 
‗reweigh[s] it against the evidence in aggravation.‘ ‖  Id. at 453-54 (quoting 
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 397-98 (2000)). 
As to the application of the Strickland standard in a case involving the 
presentation of mitigating evidence, the United States Supreme Court has 
explained: 
We certainly have never held that counsel‘s effort to present 
some mitigation evidence should foreclose an inquiry into whether a 
facially deficient mitigation investigation might have prejudiced the 
defendant.  To the contrary, we have consistently explained that the 
Strickland inquiry requires [a] . . . probing and fact-specific 
analysis . . . . 
Sears v. Upton, 130 S. Ct. 3259, 3266 (2010). 
Both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact.  
Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766, 771-72 (Fla. 2004).  ―In reviewing a trial court‘s 
ruling after an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 
 
- 12 - 
this Court defers to the factual findings of the trial court to the extent that they are 
supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews de novo the application 
of the law to those facts.‖  Mungin v. State, 932 So. 2d 986, 998 (Fla. 2006). 
I.  Mitigating Evidence Claim 
 
In this claim, Hildwin asserts that defense counsel was ineffective in various 
respects with regard to the investigation and presentation of mental health 
mitigation during Hildwin‘s 1996 resentencing proceeding.  Hildwin‘s primary 
claims are that defense counsel were deficient for failing to call Dr. Carbonell, a 
clinical psychologist, as an expert witness and for failing to provide Dr. Berland 
with institutional records and sufficient information to contact certain lay 
witnesses.5  His argument is that there must have been ineffective assistance of 
counsel because in granting a new penalty phase this Court quoted the trial court‘s 
statement that the expert mental health testimony was ―most persuasive and 
                                         
 
5.  Hildwin summarily contends that defense counsel was ineffective for 
failing to supervise the investigator and in rushing both experts.  These claims 
were not raised below and thus are procedurally barred.  See Green v. State, 975 
So. 2d 1090, 1104 (Fla. 2008).  We further conclude that they are without merit. 
 
Hildwin also summarily asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for 
failing to develop and present evidence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
and organic brain damage.  As to PTSD, Hildwin presented the expert testimony of 
Dr. Greenbaum at the evidentiary hearing, who diagnosed Hildwin with PTSD.  
However, Dr. Greenbaum‘s testimony was vague and nonspecific, and he could 
not connect the diagnosis to the murder.  Further, Hildwin does not assert how the 
failure to develop and present evidence of PTSD prejudiced him.  As to the organic 
brain damage claim, we first note that the trial court found organic brain damage as 
a nonstatutory mitigator.  Second, Hildwin has not demonstrated deficiency or 
prejudice as to this claim. 
 
- 13 - 
convincing‖; however, on resentencing, the trial court found fault with the mental 
health mitigation presentation, as outlined in the trial court‘s sentencing order. 
 
We begin our analysis of this claim by noting that this is Hildwin‘s second 
penalty phase.  Thus, Hildwin‘s claim ―must be analyzed in light of the fact that 
this was a resentencing and that his counsel, in preparing for the second penalty 
phase, had the advantage of analyzing the first penalty phase, which resulted in a 
sentence of death.‖  Derrick v. State, 983 So. 2d 443, 458 (Fla. 2008).  At the first 
penalty phase, defense counsel did not present any mental health mitigation and 
very little in the way of mitigation by lay witnesses.  The jury unanimously 
recommended death.  In contrast, at resentencing, two mental health experts 
testified, both of whom diagnosed Hildwin with brain damage and mental illness.  
Further, testimony was presented as to the horrific conditions of Hildwin‘s 
childhood and the abuse inflicted by his father.  The jury recommended death by a 
vote of eight to four. 
 
Hildwin first contends that defense counsel were ineffective for failing to 
present Dr. Carbonell as an expert witness in the 1996 penalty phase.  Dr. 
Carbonell testified at the 1992 evidentiary hearing on Hildwin‘s initial 
postconviction motion from his first penalty phase, and her testimony was part of 
the basis on which this Court granted Hildwin the new penalty-phase proceeding.  
In support of this claim, Hildwin points out that in reversing for a new penalty 
 
- 14 - 
phase, this Court noted that the trial court had found the testimony of the mental 
health experts offered at the 1992 evidentiary hearing—Drs. Maher and 
Carbonell—―most persuasive and convincing.‖  Hildwin II, 654 So. 2d at 109 n.8.  
In contrast, after the new penalty phase, the trial court found that the opinions of 
the experts—Drs. Maher and Berland—would be ―based on extrapolation, 
speculation, and conjecture‖ regarding Hildwin‘s state of mind at the time of the 
murder.  Thus, Hildwin argues, defense counsel were ineffective for failing to 
present an expert that was previously found to be ―most persuasive and 
convincing,‖ contending that counsel‘s ineffectiveness is demonstrated by the 
markedly different conclusion reached after the new penalty phase in which Dr. 
Carbonell did not testify. 
―[T]he defendant bears the burden of proving that counsel‘s representation 
was unreasonable under prevailing professional standards and was not a matter of 
sound trial strategy.‖  Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974, 984 (Fla. 2000).  Hildwin has 
not met that burden in this case.  Hildwin‘s defense counsel testified at the 
evidentiary hearing that Dr. Carbonell would have been an unwilling and hostile 
witness at the 1996 penalty-phase proceeding if she were called to testify.  As 
stated by the trial court in its order on this claim: ―Clearly, defense counsel cannot 
be admonished for the strategic decision not to call an expert witness who openly 
admits that they would not be helpful to the defense.‖  We conclude that the 
 
- 15 - 
decision not to call Dr. Carbonell to testify at the 1996 penalty-phase proceeding 
was a matter of sound trial strategy.6 
Hildwin argues that, in the alternative to presenting Dr. Carbonell as an 
expert witness, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to provide Dr. Berland 
with institutional records already in the court file—on which Dr. Carbonell based 
her expert testimony at the 1992 evidentiary hearing—as well as sufficient 
information to contact certain lay witnesses who knew Hildwin around the time of 
the murder.  From a review of Dr. Berland‘s testimony at the new penalty-phase 
proceeding, it appears that Dr. Berland was not given the institutional records or 
provided sufficient information as to the witnesses.  He testified at the proceeding 
that he did not rely on any records or institutional records that predated the murder; 
he ―had the opportunity to look at some prison records after his incarceration, but 
nothing before.‖  Further, he stated at resentencing that he had ―tried very hard‖ to 
contact witnesses who knew Hildwin after 1979 (the murder took place in 1985), 
but ―was unsuccessful in doing so.‖  At the evidentiary hearing on this claim, Dr. 
Berland testified that he had asked for information in order to contact the lay 
witnesses, but was told that they were unavailable.  Defense counsel did not give 
                                         
 
6.  To the extent that Hildwin asserts that defense counsel should have 
presented Dr. Carbonell‘s prior testimony from the 1992 evidentiary hearing in lieu 
of her live testimony, the record reflects that defense counsel attempted to do so; 
however, their motion to use her prior testimony was denied by the trial court. 
 
- 16 - 
an explanation at the evidentiary hearing for why Dr. Berland was not provided 
with the records or the means to contact the witnesses. 
The State points to Dr. Berland‘s testimony at the evidentiary hearing that he 
has since reviewed the institutional records and interviewed the lay witnesses and 
that his opinions and conclusions remain unchanged from his 1996 testimony.  
However, Hildwin is not arguing that Dr. Berland‘s testimony would have been 
different, but rather that the jury and the trial court would have accorded more 
weight to the testimony.  On cross-examination, the State was able to highlight Dr. 
Berland‘s failure to review the records or speak with lay witnesses who knew 
Hildwin at the time of the murder.  Hildwin also points to the trial court‘s 
resentencing order, in which the court stated that the expert testimony had ―the 
problem of not having talked to sufficient people who knew the defendant around 
the time of the crime,‖ specifically that ―Dr. Berland testified that he talked to no 
one who knew the defendant after 1979, and thus didn‘t talk to any people who had 
been around the defendant close to the time of the murder.‖ 
We first note that Hildwin has not demonstrated that the witnesses were 
available to be contacted in 1996.  In fact, the State moved to have the prior 
testimony of one of the witnesses read into the record because neither the State nor 
defense counsel had been able to find her.  Further, none of the witnesses testified 
at the evidentiary hearing on this claim.  Lastly, when Dr. Berland was finally able 
 
- 17 - 
to interview the witnesses, he did not ask them whether they were available in 
1996.  If the witnesses were unavailable in 1996, defense counsel cannot be 
ineffective for failing to provide Dr. Berland with the means to contact them. 
Assuming that defense counsel were deficient in not providing Dr. Berland 
with the institutional records and assuming that more weight would have been 
given to the mental health mitigation, Hildwin has still failed to demonstrate 
prejudice.  Based on a review of the evidentiary hearings and the new penalty-
phase trial, we conclude that in light of the aggravators and mitigators, Hildwin has 
not demonstrated that confidence in the outcome of the penalty-phase proceeding 
has been undermined.  Porter, 130 S. Ct. at 455-56.7  Even with more weight given 
to the mitigation, there remain four aggravators: prior violent felony, murder 
committed while under a sentence of imprisonment, HAC, and pecuniary gain.  
The HAC and prior violent felony aggravators have been described as especially 
weighty or serious aggravators set out in the sentencing scheme.  Frances v. State, 
970 So. 2d 806, 817 (Fla. 2007) (describing prior violent felony aggravator as 
―especially weighty‖ (citing Ferrell v. State, 680 So. 2d 390, 391 (Fla. 1996))); 
Buzia v. State, 926 So. 2d 1203, 1216 (Fla. 2006) (describing HAC as one of the 
                                         
 
7.  Hildwin suggests that this Court should consider in its prejudice analysis 
the DNA test results that exclude Hildwin as the source of the DNA profile found 
at the crime scene.  However, the DNA results go to the issue of guilt, and this 
Court has previously made it clear that lingering doubt is not a valid mitigating 
circumstance.  Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 1128, 1152 (Fla. 2006). 
 
- 18 - 
―most serious aggravators set out in the statutory sentencing scheme‖ (quoting 
Larkins v. State, 739 So. 2d 90, 95 (Fla. 1999))).  Further, the trial court found in 
its resentencing order that the mitigators were ―greatly outweighed‖ by the 
aggravators, noting in particular the ―senselessness,‖ ―needlessness,‖ 
―heartlessness,‖ and ―callousness‖ of the murder: 
Finally, the Court is struck by the stark senselessness and pure 
needlessness of the murder.  At the time of the murder, it would 
appear that the defendant was decently situated materially.  He had 
gotten out of prison and had relocated to Florida.  While true that he 
was on parole, he lived a fairly normal life.  He had a girlfriend, and 
he lived with his father in a mobile home in the woods.  He was living 
like a normal citizen.  The evidence of this case indicated that the 
defendant enjoyed the things that most of us enjoy, the company of 
friends, movies, and so forth.  Yet the defendant was apparently not 
satisfied by this peaceful coexistence.  For some strange reason, not 
nearly understandable, even given the intense psychological scrutiny 
to which the defendant has been subjected, the defendant decided to 
commit a senseless, wasteful, and unnecessary murder, apparently 
motivated primarily for economic gain.  He brutally killed a young 
woman merely to acquire some money with which to put gas in his 
car, and for a few personal possessions with which to stock his 
bedroom.  This ruthless, savage, cruel and unnecessary murder cannot 
be lawfully justified under any circumstances present in this case, 
even considering the mitigating factors present, and giving them some 
weight.  It is true that the childhood of the defendant was horrible; the 
defendant had a history of substance and drug abuse; that based on the 
psychological experts he suffered from organic brain damage; that he 
has the ability to do well in a structured setting; and that his type of 
mental illness is appropriate and treatable in a prison setting.  
Nevertheless, these mitigating factors are greatly outweighed by the 
heartlessness and callousness of the murder of Vronzettie Cox. 
(Emphasis added.)  Accordingly, we conclude that Hildwin has not demonstrated 
prejudice, and therefore his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail. 
 
- 19 - 
II.  Closing Argument Claim 
 
Hildwin next contends that defense counsel Richard Howard was ineffective 
for failing to object to the following statements made by the State during closing 
argument: 
In weighing the circumstances that are before you, it is the 
choices made by Paul Hildwin which far outweigh everything that had 
ever happened to him in his own life. 
When he got out of that car on the side of the road without gas, 
he had a choice to make. 
. . . . 
Paul Hildwin held Vronzettie Cox‘s life in his balance.  And on 
this side of the balance was Vronzettie Cox‘s life.  On this side of the 
balance was this cheap little radio, a pearl that she had gotten out of 
an oyster at Silver Springs and $75.  And he weighed that against her 
life. 
And for Vronzettie Cox, Paul Hildwin chose death and not life.  
And as we choose, our lives are formed.  In choosing for Vronzettie 
Cox.  [sic]  Paul Hildwin chose for himself.  He chose his own fate.  
And just as for Vronzettie Cox, he chose death and not life.  Thank 
you, Your Honor.  
(Emphasis added.)  Specifically, Hildwin asserts that the statements were an 
improper eye-for-an-eye argument, analogous to a mercy argument, and an 
improper appeal to the sympathies of the jurors.  At the evidentiary hearing on this 
claim, counsel testified that he made a strategic decision not to object to these 
comments.8 
                                         
 
8.  Defense counsel did not object at any point during the State‘s closing 
argument. 
 
- 20 - 
In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on this 
ground, Hildwin ―must first show that the comments were improper or 
objectionable and that there was no tactical reason for failing to object.‖  Stephens 
v. State, 975 So. 2d 405, 420 (Fla. 2007).  Second, he must demonstrate prejudice. 
―Closing argument is an opportunity for counsel to review the evidence and 
to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.‖  
Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054, 1061 (Fla. 2007).  However, prosecutorial 
arguments that ―unnecessar[ily] appeal to the sympathies of the jurors‖ are 
improper.  Nowell v. State, 998 So. 2d 597, 607 (Fla. 2008).  An example of an 
improper argument that unnecessarily appeals to the sympathies of the jurors is the 
―mercy‖ argument, in which a prosecutor argues that the jury should show the 
defendant the same mercy that the defendant showed the victim.  See id.  ―This 
Court has consistently held that it is improper during closing argument for the 
prosecutor to encourage the jury to show a defendant the same amount of mercy as 
he showed his victim because such argument tends to unnecessarily appeal to the 
sympathies of the jury.‖  Conahan v. State, 844 So. 2d 629, 640-41 (Fla. 2003). 
Even assuming that the argument was improper, we conclude that Hildwin 
has failed to demonstrate prejudice.  This Court has previously stated that ―a mercy 
argument standing alone does not constitute reversible error.‖  Merck, 975 So. 2d 
at 1062 (citing Reed v. State, 875 So. 2d 415, 438 (Fla. 2004)).  In that case, this 
 
- 21 - 
Court concluded that no relief was warranted where ―the mercy comments were 
not dwelled upon or emphasized in the context of the entire closing.‖  Id.  Here, 
while the prosecutor at length described the choices that Hildwin had made in his 
life, the arguably improper comments—that by choosing death for the victim, 
Hildwin chose death for himself—are relatively brief and not emphasized by the 
prosecutor.  Accordingly, we conclude that Hildwin has not demonstrated 
prejudice on this claim and thus his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must 
fail. 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‘s denial of Hildwin‘s 
motion for postconviction relief. 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and 
PERRY, JJ., concur. 
LEWIS, J., concurs in result. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hernando County,  
Richard Tombrink, Jr., Judge – Case No. 85-499-CF 
 
Martin J. McClain of McClain and McDermott, P.A., Wilton Manors, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
 
- 22 - 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Kenneth Sloan 
Nunnelley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee