Case Name: George PORTER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-05-03
Citations: 788 So. 2d 917
Docket Number: No. SC88562
Parties: George PORTER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 788
Pages: 917–937

Head Matter:
George PORTER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. SC88562.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 3, 2001.
Rehearing Denied June 20, 2001.
John W. Moser, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-Middle Region, Michael P. Reiter, Chief Assistant CCRC, Amy C. Settlemire, Assistant CCRC and Linda McDermott, Staff Attorney, Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel Middle Region, Tampa, FL, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
George Porter, Jr., a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm the trial court's denial of Porter's 3.850 motion.
FACTS
Porter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the 1986 shooting deaths of Evelyn Williams and her boyfriend, Walter Burrows. The facts, as fully set forth in this Court's opinion on Porter's direct appeal, are:
Porter elected to represent himself, with the assistance of standby counsel, when he went on trial in November 1987 on two counts of first-degree murder and one count each of armed burglary and aggravated assault. The facts adduced at trial are as follows.
In 1985 in Melbourne, Florida, Porter became the live-in lover of the first victim, Evelyn Williams ('Williams"). Their relationship was stormy almost from the beginning, aggravated by hostility between Porter and Williams' children, especially Williams' daughter, Amber. Several violent incidents occurred during the course of Porter's relationship with Williams. In July 1986, Porter damaged Williams' car while she was at work, and later he telephoned and threatened to kill Williams and Amber. Porter left town shortly thereafter and was not seen again in town until early October 1986. Before Porter returned to Melbourne, Williams had entered a relationship with the second victim, Walter Burrows.
When Porter returned to town, he contacted Williams' mother, Lora Mae Meyer. He told her that he wanted to see Williams, and that he had a gift for her. Meyer told Porter that her daughter did not wish to see him anymore, and that Williams wanted nothing from him. Nevertheless, Porter persisted. During each of the two days immediately preceding the murder, Porter was seen driving past Williams' house.
A few days before the murder, Porter had a conversation with a friend, Nancy Sherwood, who testified that Porter told her, "you'll read it in the paper." She offered no explanation for Porter's remark. Porter went to the home of another friend, Dennis Gardner, and asked to borrow a gun. Gardner declined, but the gun subsequently vanished from Gardner's home.
On October 8, 1986, Porter visited Williams, who then called the police because she was afraid of him. That evening, Porter went to two cocktail lounges. He spent the night with a friend, Lawrence Jury, who said that Porter was quite drunk by 11 p.m.
At 5:30 a.m. the next morning, Amber awoke to the sound of gunshots. She ran down the hallway and saw Porter standing over her mother's body. Amber testified that Porter came toward her, pointed a gun at her head and said, "boom, boom, you're going to die." Burrows then came into the room, struggled with Porter, and forced him outside. Amber telephoned for emergency assistance.
Williams' son, John, who lived next door, testified that he heard gunshot blasts at about 5:30 a.m. He ran outside and saw Burrows lying facedown in the front lawn. Both Williams and Burrows were dead by the time police arrived at the scene.
On December 5, 1987, as the prosecution was nearly finished presenting its case-in-chief, Porter told the judge that he wanted to plead guilty to the murder charges and no contest to the other charges. When the judge sought the factual basis of the pleas from Porter, Porter denied killing Williams, although said he may have killed Burrows. The judge refused to accept the pleas on that basis. Porter consulted with his standby counsel and then said he would plead guilty to all four charges, but that he did not want to provide a factual basis for the pleas. The trial court conducted an extensive inquiry into the voluntariness of the pleas, and the prosecutor presented the factual basis in support of guilt. Porter admitted his guilt and said he changed his pleas "[bjecause I want to get it over with." The trial court accepted the guilty pleas to all four counts.
Porter v. State, 564 So.2d 1060, 1061-62 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1110, 111 S.Ct. 1024, 112 L.Ed.2d 1106 (1991).
On January 21, 1988, the trial jury returned for the penalty phase, at which Porter was represented by counsel. The jury recommended death by a twelve-to-zero vote for the murder of Williams and by a vote of ten to two for the murder of Burrows, but the trial judge imposed death only on the murder of Williams. The trial judge found four aggravators and no mitigators. On direct appeal, this Court struck the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravator but affirmed the conviction and sentence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 27, 1995, Porter filed the instant amended rule 3.850 motion, which contained fifteen issues. The trial court conducted a Huff hearing on May 22, 1995. Subsequent to that hearing, the trial court issued an order on July 12, 1995, summarily denying all claims raised by Porter except for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding counsel's failure to pursue mental health evaluations for the purpose of developing mitigating evidence and counsel's failure to present other matters in mitigation. On these claims the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 4 and 5, 1996. Subsequent to this hearing, the trial court denied the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This appeal follows.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Porter raises nine issues on appeal. We conclude that issues 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, as well as part of issue 6 (relating to the "committed during the commission of a burglary" aggravator) are procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal. See LeCroy v. Dugger, 727 So.2d 236, 240 (Fla.1998) (issue 9); Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203, 205 (Fla.1998) (issue 5); Oats v. Dugger, 638 So.2d 20, 22 (Fla.1994) (issue 6); Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So.2d 452, 453-54 (Fla.1993) (issue 4); Garcia v. State 622 So.2d 1325, 1326 (Fla.1993) (issues 7 and 8). The remaining arguments in issue 6, relating to the claim of vagueness in the instructions on aggravating circumstances, are procedurally barred because Porter did not make a specific objection at trial or propose an alternative instruction and then pursue the vagueness issue on direct appeal. See Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 517 (Fla.1999). We will discuss the remaining issues.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
As his first claim, Porter asserts his penalty phase counsel was ineffective. This claim involves alleged failures in respect to investigation and presentation of evidence concerning: (1) statutory and nonstatutory mental mitigation; (2) Porter's abusive childhood environment; (3) Porter's alcohol abuse; and (4) Porter's military combat service in Korea.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, taking two days of testimony. At the evidentiary hearing, Porter called his penalty phase counsel, Bardwell, as his first witness. The trial judge appointed Bard-well to represent Porter because the public defender had a conflict. Bardwell initially served as counsel in the guilt phase but became stand-by counsel when Porter made the decision to represent himself during the guilt phase. Bardwell thereafter became counsel for the penalty phase.
At the time of the Porter trial, Bardwell was an experienced criminal trial attorney. Bardwell had served as an assistant state attorney and then as a private criminal defense attorney who accepted conflict cases from the public defender. Prior to his representation of Porter, Bardwell had received five appointments to represent defendants in capital cases. Porter's penalty phase was the first penalty phase in which Bardwell had been involved as defense counsel.
Bardwell testified that, during the preparation for the penalty phase, Porter was very "fatalistic." Bardwell stated that Porter instructed him not to discuss the case with his wife or son. He did not want them brought into the case. Bardwell also stated that Porter refused to talk to a medical doctor, whom Bardwell wanted to evaluate Porter's alcohol use.
Following two days of evidence, the trial court entered a detailed order. In this order the trial court found that Porter had significantly limited his trial counsel in both the preparation for and presentation of the penalty phase defense. In footnote 4 of the order, the trial court stated:
This Court also finds that it is important to note here that had the Defendant cooperated with Defense Counsel's efforts to develop the statutory mitigator alleged above, this Court would not now be in the position of having to determine whether or not true statutory mitigating evidence existed at the time of trial. Indeed, the Defendant gave Defense Counsel instructions not to speak to members of his family (See Exhibit "A", Transcript at pages 77-80, 90-92) and he refused to speak to the doctor who Defense counsel sent to the jail (See Exhibit "A", Transcript at pages 55, 70-76). This total lack of cooperation with Defense Counsel, therefore, leaves this Court now in a somewhat precarious position in regards to the true existence of this statutory mitigating evidence and thus the Court finds this aspect of the Defendant's claim to be nothing more than speculation.
State v. Porter, No. 85-5546-CFA, order at 8 n. 4 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. order filed May 10, 1996). The lack of cooperation by Porter at the time of the trial is significant. We have held that a defense attorney is not ineffective for following such instructions by counsel's client. Sims v. State, 602 So.2d 1253, 1257 (Fla.1992). See also Sims v. Singletary, 155 F.3d 1297, 1316 (11th Cir.1998) (counsel cannot be deemed deficient for failing to present additional evidence of mitigation of which counsel was unaware due to defendant's refusal to assist in obtaining the information); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1993) (trial counsel not ineffective where defendant preempted trial counsel's strategy).
Regarding Porter's postconviction motion claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based upon the failure to investigate and present statutory and non-statutory mental and other mitigation, both Porter and the State presented psychologist testimony at the postconviction evidentiary hearing. Porter presented the testimony of Dr. Henry Dee, an expert in forensic psychology and neuropsychology. Dr. Dee testified that Porter suffered from a mental condition that substantially impaired his ability to comply with the law. The State's expert, Dr. William Riebsame, an expert in forensic psychology, specifically disagreed with Dr. Dee's testimony and testified that this mitigation was not present. The trial court's order held in respect to this conflicting expert testimony:
In regards to the Defendant's allegation of the presence of statutory mitigation evidence (e.g., mental health evaluations), the Defendant called, at the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Henry Dee as an expert witness in the area of forensic psychology and neuropsychology. See Exhibit "A", Transcript at pages 205-289. The testimony of Dr. Dee was tendered to establish statutory mitigating factors; i.e., that the Defendant suffered from a mental condition and that this mental condition substantially impaired his ability to comply with the law. This Court, however, finds Dr. Dee's testimony to be speculative and not supported by the evidence to a reasonable scientific certainty. This Court thus rejects Dr. Dee's testimony, and rather accepts the testimony of Dr. William Riebsame (who specifically disagreed with Dr. Dee), on this issue. See Exhibit "A", Transcript at pages 310-394. At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Riebsame was tendered as an expert in the field of forensic psychology, and he testified that the Defendant was not suffering from a mental condition such that his ability to comply with the law was substantially impaired....
. Given, therefore, the factual findings of this Court and the Trial Court judge, as well as the [testimony of Dr. Riebsame], this Court determines that Defense Counsel was not ineffective for fading to pursue mental health evaluations and that the Defendant has thus failed to show sufficient evidence that any statutory mitigators could have been presented.
State v. Porter, No. 85-5546 CFA, order at 4-7 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. order filed May 10, 1996) (footnote omitted). The reason we have required postconviction evidentiary hearings on capital postconviction motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel is to provide a defendant an opportunity to present factual and expert evidence which was not presented at the trial of the case and to have the trial court evaluate and weigh that additional evidence. Following such an evidentiary hearing, we have held that the performance and prejudice prongs are mixed questions of law and fact subject to a de novo review standard but that the trial court's factual findings are to be given deference. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1034 (Fla.1999). So long as its decisions are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact and, likewise, on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court. Id. We recognize and honor the trial court's superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact.
At the conclusion of the postconviction evidentiary hearing in this case, the trial court had before it two conflicting expert opinions over the existence of mitigation. Based upon our case law, it was then for the trial court to resolve the conflict by the weight the trial court afforded one expert's opinion as compared to the other. The trial court did this and resolved the conflict by determining that the greatest weight was to be afforded the State's expert. We accept this finding by the trial court because it was based upon competent, substantial evidence. See id. at 1034.
Having resolved the conflict of the expert opinion, the trial court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of the alleged mitigation. Accordingly, the trial court held that trial counsel's decision not to pursue mental evaluations did not exceed the bounds for competent counsel set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In view of the trial court's factual finding, we agree that the trial court's conclusion that trial counsel was not ineffective is legally correct under Strickland. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d at 1034. We therefore affirm the trial court on this issue.
The trial court next stated its findings in respect to the other asserted nonstatutory mitigators:
Given this finding of no statutory miti-gators, the question thus becomes whether the presentation of any of the nonstatutory mitigators would have made a difference in the sentencing outcome of this case. This Court finds that even if the judge and jury had been presented with the evidence of nonstatu-tory mitigators, this presentation would not in fact have made any difference.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court reviews the evidence presented by the Defendant, all of which may be categorized under the penumbra of one of three mitigating categories. The first of these categories of mitigating evidence is that of the Defendant's problems with alcohol. On this issue, the Court initially notes that the evidence presented is far from conclusive and in fact, the testimony of the Defendant's brother and sister conflicted on this issue. Additionally, the Court again notes the finding of the trial court judge that:
[t]he defendant was sober the night before the murders and he was sober immediately after the murders. He was able to drive and transact business. There is nothing in the record which would support a finding that this mitigating circumstance exists.
See Exhibit "B", Judgment and Sentence dated 3/4/88.
Given this finding, as well as the conflicting testimony of Defendant's siblings, this Court finds that even if the judge and jury had been presented with evidence of the Defendant's prior problems with alcohol, the effect of any such evidence on the outcome of the sentencing procedure would have been insignificant at best.
The second mitigating factor alleged by the Defendant is that of an abusive childhood. The Defendant, however, was approximately fifty-four years old at the time of trial. Due to this remoteness in time, " 'evidence of a deprived and abusive childhood is entitled to little, if any mitigating weight' when compared to the aggravating factors". Bolender, 16 F.3d at 1561 (quoting Frances[Francis] v. Dugger, 908 F.2d 696, 703 (11th Cir.1990)); See also, Bottoson [v. State], 21 Fla. L. Weekly S38 [674 So.2d 621 (Fla.1996)]. Any presentation of this factor would therefore have been insignificant.
The third area of mitigating evidence is that of the Defendant's military history. Though this Court does recognize the Defendant's military service, it notes that if the Defendant had presented evidence of his military experience, the judge and jury would have been presented with evidence of the Defendant' s recurring periods of being Absent Without Leave (AWOL), as well. In his testimony during the evidentiary hearing, for example, Sherman Pratt testified that the Defendant's military records reflect that the Defendant:
did have two or three periods of absence without leave . [and] that later on when he got back to the States he went AWOL, for . almost a year. For that he received a special court-
Martial and was sentenced to I think six months, fifty dollars a month fine. See Exhibit "A", Transcript at pages 154, 155. These periods of desertion would have significantly impacted upon any mitigating effect that the evidence would have had, and indeed they would have reduced this impact to inconsequential proportions.
Not only would each of these three mitigators standing alone not have made a difference to the sentencing outcome of this case, but even if all three had been presented, their "mitigating effect [would] not begin to tip the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors in favor of [the] petitioner". Bolender, 16 F.3d at 1561. The murders here were cold, calculated, and highly premeditated; the Defendant had made clear his intent to kill Evelyn Williams, and advised her family through three separate phone calls of this intent. Indeed, as the Florida Supreme Court found in its determination that "the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any moral or legal justification",
Porter previously had threatened to kill Williams and her daughter. He watched Williams' house for two days just before the murders. Apparently he stole a gun from a friend just to kill Williams. [Then] he told another friend that she would be reading about him in the newspaper. While Porter's motivation may have been grounded in passion, it is clear that he contemplated this murder well in advance.
Porter, 564 So.2d at 1064.
State v. Porter, No. 85-5546-CFA, order at 8-11 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. order filed May 10, 1996).
Giving appropriate deference to the trial court's factual findings, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that Porter has not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to sustain his burden under the prejudice component of Strickland. We conclude that the trial judge's decision is in accord with our decisions in Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974 (Fla.2000); Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998); Breedlove v. State, 692 So.2d 874 (Fla.1997); and Haliburton v. Singletary, 691 So.2d 466 (Fla.1997). Further, this case is very similar to our recent decision in Cherry v. State, 781 So.2d 1040 (Fla.2000).
In the present case, the trial court found that the defendant failed to cooperate with counsel at the penalty phase of the trial, and thereby defendant himself limited the available evidence. There is additional postconviction expert testimony regarding mitigation which the trial court found to be entitled to little weight in light of conflicting expert testimony. The trial judge found the additional nonstatutory mitigation to be lacking in weight because of the specific facts presented. Finally, following a full evidentiary hearing, the trial judge determined that the additional mitigators were outweighed by the weighty aggravators of a prior violent felony and a cold, calculated, and premeditated murder. We agree.
In view of our conclusion that the trial court was correct in respect to the failure by Porter to carry the burden on the prejudice component of Strickland, we do not reach the first component in respect to competence of counsel. See Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla.1989) (performance component need not be considered when it is clear that prejudice component has not been met).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order in respect to this claim.
Remaining Claims
We find no merit to the remainder of Porter's claims. In his second issue on appeal, Porter alleges that the trial court denied him his due process rights by not allowing him to be present at the Huff hearing to argue a claim that Porter had raised in a separately filed pro se rule 3.850 motion. As further support of the trial court's error, Porter claims that defense counsel on several occasions informed the court that Porter would be the one best prepared to argue some of the claims that were in the motion because Porter claimed they had merit. We find no merit to this issue. First, Porter was given the opportunity to raise these claims in his pro se motion and in the one filed by his attorney, and he was represented by counsel at the hearing. Moreover, the judge specifically found that no evidence on the merits of any of Porter's claims would be heard at the hearing. Finally, the trial court also provided a detailed and accurate explanation of the reasons why he denied an evidentiary hearing on the issues Porter claims he should have been present to address. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's denial of Porter's request to appear at the Huff hearing.
Porter also claims error in the trial court's summary denial of four of his post-conviction claims. After a careful review of Porter's allegations and the record in this case, we find that the record clearly refutes Porter's factual allegations on each issue. First, we find Porter's claim that the record on direct appeal was incomplete to be proeedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal. See Muhammad v. State, 603 So.2d 488 (Fla.1992). To the extent that this claim is based on newly discovered evidence, we find that the record clearly refutes the claim. In fact, a comparison of the record that Porter has now obtained from post-conviction counsel to the record on appeal reveals that the record on appeal was more complete and comprehensive. Therefore, Porter suffered no prejudice as a result, and no evidentiary hearing was required.
Porter next claims that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on his competence to stand trial, the adequacy of the competency hearing, and the adequacy of the evaluations conducted by the court-appointed experts. As support for these claims, Porter points to his bizarre conduct before trial and his two suicide attempts after pleading guilty. Moreover, as to the inadequate evaluation, Porter alleges that the appointed mental health experts failed to review his background materials and merely based their recommendations on interviews with Porter and observations during court proceedings. We find no merit to any of these claims.
First, the record reflects that as to his competency claims, the trial court went to great lengths to ensure Porter was competent to stand trial. Specifically, the court conducted a competency hearing before the start of trial. The record also reflects that, at the hearing, the reports of the two experts appointed to evaluate Porter were admitted into evidence, and the trial court also conducted its own extensive evaluation and thorough inquiry of Porter's rational understanding of the proceeding against him. Moreover, after Porter had pled guilty and had attempted to commit suicide, the court again ordered psychiatric examinations of Porter. After meeting with Porter in the hospital, Dr. J. Lloyd Wilder opined at the hearing to withdraw the guilty plea that Porter was thinking clearly and exercising competent judgment at the time he entered the plea. On this issue, the record reflects that the trial judge not only complied with his duty to conduct a competency hearing but he undertook a conscious effort to ensure the integrity and reliability of these proceedings.
As to the adequacy of the court-appointed experts, the record reflects that Porter was evaluated by two reputable doctors on several occasions. Each time, the doctors opined that Porter was competent to stand trial. Although Porter alleges that he was evaluated by a different mental health expert who, after examining him and reviewing his background, concluded that he was not competent to enter a guilty plea, Porter does not provide the expert's name or when any of these evaluations occurred. Moreover, we have held that merely because a defendant presents a new expert who has evaluated a defendant after trial and who renders a different opinion than prior experts that does not by itself render inadequate a prior thorough evaluation. See, e.g., Engle v. Dugger, 576 So.2d 696 (Fla.1991).
As his next subclaim, Porter alleges that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that the court conducted an inadequate Faretta inquiry to determine whether Porter's waiver of counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. He further claims that the trial court applied the wrong standard for determining a defendant's competency to waive counsel. We disagree with both of his claims. In United States v. Fant, 890 F.2d 408 (11th Cir.1989), the court outlined the following factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver:
(1) the background, experience and conduct of the defendant including his age, educational background, and his physical and mental health; (2) the extent to which the defendant had contact with lawyers prior to trial; (3) the defendant's knowledge of the nature of the charges, the possible defenses, and the possible penalty; (4) the defendant's understanding of the rules of procedure, evidence and courtroom decorum; (5) the defendant's experience in criminal trials; (6) whether standby counsel was appointed, and the extent to which he aided the defendant; (7) whether the waiver of counsel was the result of mistreatment or coercion; or (8) whether the defendant was trying to manipulate the events of the trial.
Id. at 409-10 (quoting Strozier v. Newsome, 871 F.2d 995, 998 (11th Cir.1989)). The transcripts in the instant case reflect that the trial judge conducted several extensive inquiries of defendant which covered all of the areas outlined in Fant. He inquired as to Porter's knowledge and familiarity with the legal system and also discussed Porter's mental conditions and the dangers and disadvantages associated with Porter representing himself. Therefore, the record clearly refutes Porter's claim on this issue, and, therefore, no evi-dentiary hearing was required. Porter's claim as to the standard for determining competency is without merit. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 399, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993).
Porter's final claim on this issue is that the trial court erred in summarily denying his Brady claim. As correctly found by the trial court, most of Porter's allegations on this issue constituted mere challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence; therefore, they are not Brady claims. As to his remaining allegations, the record reflects that both Porter and the State stipulated to the introduction into evidence of the articles and objects claimed by Porter to have been withheld by the State. For these reasons, we find that Porter's claims are clearly refuted by the record, and no evidentiary hearing was needed.
CONCLUSION
Because Porter has failed to demonstrate any basis for relief, we affirm the trial court's denial of Porter's rule 3.850 motion.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs.
. Porter's penalty phase counsel was his standby counsel in the guilty phase.
. The four aggravators found by the trial judge were: (1) the defendant had been previously convicted of another capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; (2) the capital felonies were committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a burglary; (3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (4) the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner.
. Porter's initial 3.850 motion was filed on June 22, 1992. That motion contained a public records request under chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Porter was given sixty days from the date of full disclosure of all public records to amend his motion. On June 28, 1993, Porter filed an amended motion to vacate the convictions and sentences. The trial court denied the motion because it failed to contain a properly sworn oath. After Porter's motion for reconsideration was denied, he sought review of the order with this Court. On November 29, 1994, we granted the State's motion to dismiss without prejudice to Porter filing a properly sworn motion within ninety days of that order. This was the motion that was ultimately denied by the trial court.
. Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993).
. In a recent case dealing with the failure of an attorney to file an appeal on behalf of a defendant pursuant to the denial of a noncap-ital rule 3.850 motion, we held that the defendant was entitled to petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus on whether the attorney had indeed agreed to file an appeal. See Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla.1999). We further instructed that if the defendant prevailed, he would have the right to file a belated rule 3.850 motion. See id. This court has always recognized a defendant's right to appeal from the denial of a motion for postconviction relief. Although Porter's counsel was five days late in filing his notice of appeal, we find that counsel's tardiness of five days should not constitute a waiver of Porter's right to have his initial postconviction capital motion reviewed. The State does not challenge Porter's wish to appeal. However, we caution counsel that such lateness in future cases may result in sanctions imposed against counsel.
. Porter's nine claims are: (1) Porter received ineffective assistance of penalty phase counsel; (2) Porter's due process rights were violated when he was not permitted to appear at the Huff hearing; (3) the trial court failed to grant an evidentiary hearing on Porter's claims that the record on appeal was incomplete; he was incompetent to stand trial; the competency hearing and psychiatric evaluations were inadequate; the Faretta inquiry was inadequate; and the State withheld exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (4) the trial court imper-missibly relied on nonstatutory aggravators; (5) the penalty phase jury instructions imper-missibly shifted the burden of proof to Porter; (6) the aggravating circumstance instructions were overbroad and vague; (7) the death sentence is impermissibly based on an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance; (8) the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence; and (9) the prosecutor engaged in improper prosecutorial conduct during trial.
.See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), wherein the Court held:
A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient.... Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
. In fact, although not in effect at the time of the trial in this case, the judge's inquiry of Porter on this issue comports with the model colloquy that is now available for trial judges when conducting a Faretta inquiry. See Amendment to Fla. Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.111(d)(2)-(3), 719 So.2d 873, 876-80 (Fla.1998).
. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).