Title: Porter v. State
Citation: 723 So. 2d 191
Docket Number: 90101
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 1998

723 So. 2d 191 (1998)
Raleigh PORTER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90101.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 15, 1998.
Rehearing Denied December 15, 1998.
*192 Martin J. McClain, Litigation Director CCRC, and Todd G. Scher, Chief Assistant CCRC, Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel for the Southern Region, Miami, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Robert J. Landry, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Raleigh Porter appeals an order entered by the circuit court below pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which found that Judge Richard M. Stanley Jr. was impartial at the time he sentenced appellant to death in 1978 and again in 1981. The circuit court's order stems from an evidentiary hearing required by a decision of the *193 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Porter v. Singletary, 49 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir.1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. State v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 697 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla.1997). We reverse the circuit court's order because we determine that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in finding that Judge Stanley was impartial when he sentenced appellant to death.
Appellant's case has a long judicial history, as detailed in Porter v. Singletary, 49 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir.1995) (affirming in part, vacating in part denial of habeas petition and holding appellant entitled to evidentiary hearing); Porter v. Singletary, No. 95-109-CIV-FTM-17D (M.D.Fla.1995) (denying successive petition for writ of habeas corpus); Porter v. Singletary, 14 F.3d 554 (11th Cir. 1994) (affirming judgment), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1009, 115 S. Ct. 532, 130 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1994); Porter v. Dugger, 805 F. Supp. 941 (M.D.Fla.1992) (vacating order); Porter v. Dugger, 777 F. Supp. 934 (M.D.Fla.1991) (denying habeas petition); Porter v. Wainwright, 805 F.2d 930 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 918, 107 S. Ct. 3195, 96 L. Ed. 2d 682, and cert. denied, 482 U.S. 919, 107 S. Ct. 3196, 96 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1987); Porter v. State, 700 So. 2d 647 (Fla.1997) (holding Capital Collateral Representative responsible for court reporting costs); Porter v. State, 688 So. 2d 318 (Fla.1997) (denying motion to disqualify Twentieth Judicial Circuit); Porter v. State, 653 So. 2d 374 (Fla.) (affirming denial of 3.850 motion and holding that habeas corpus claim was barred), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1092, 115 S. Ct. 1816, 131 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1995); Porter v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1990) (denying habeas corpus petition); Porter v. State, 478 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1985) (affirming denial of rule 3.850 motion); Porter v. State, 429 So. 2d 293 (Fla.) (affirming convictions and sentence), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S. Ct. 202, 78 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1983); and Porter v. State, 400 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1981) (affirming convictions; vacating sentence). The facts of the case are set forth in detail in these various opinions.
The judicial proceedings began with a trial in November 1978 before a jury in Glades County with Judge Stanley presiding. The jury recommended sentences of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years for the two first-degree murders of which the jury had found appellant guilty. Judge Stanley overrode the recommendations of life sentences and entered sentences of death. In its first review in 1981, this Court reversed the death sentences because of a procedural error. Porter, 400 So. 2d  at 6. The resentencing was solely a reconsideration by Judge Stanley free from the procedural error that had required the reversal. On remand, Judge Stanley again overrode the jury's recommendation of life in prison and sentenced appellant to death. On appeal, the sentences of death were affirmed. Porter, 429 So. 2d  at 294.
Following the signing of a second death warrant for appellant's execution on March 1, 1995, we had before us appellant's appeal from the denial of his second motion for postconviction relief. Germane to the present appeal is the following from our opinion issued March 28, 1995, affirming the trial court's denial of the motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850:
Porter, 653 So. 2d  at 377-78 (footnote omitted).
Appellant thereafter filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, which was denied. Porter v. Singletary, No. 95-109-CIV-FTM-17D (M.D.Fla. Mar.30, 1995). In its review of the denial of the writ, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated in respect to appellant's claim concerning Judge Stanley's lack of impartiality:
This evidence of predisposition finds some corroboration in a proffered statement by Judge Stanley to news reporters. [Note 6]
Porter argues that the proffered evidence, if proved, would establish that his sentencing judge had made up his mind to sentence Porter to death before the penalty proceedings began. Porter argues that such predisposition violated his constitutional right to a fair and impartial tribunal.
Porter, 49 F.3d  at 1487 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
The federal appeals court then remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary *195 hearing to inquire into whether appellant had established cause in his successive federal petition to surmount the abuse of writ doctrine as well as the state procedural bar. Id. at 1489-90. The Eleventh Circuit held that if on remand appellant satisfied the cause standard, then he would be entitled to an opportunity to prove that his sentencing judge lacked impartiality and violated his constitutional right to a fair and impartial tribunal. Id. at 1490. The court included the following footnotes:
Porter, 49 F.3d  at 1490.
After considering the evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing, a federal magistrate entered a report and recommendation which stated:
Porter v. Singletary, No. 95-109-CIV-FTM-17D (M.D. Fla. Report and Recommendation filed May 24, 1996).
The State made no objection to the magistrate's findings, and the federal district court adopted those findings. Porter v. Singletary, No. 95-109-CIV-FTM-17D (M.D. Fla. order filed June 14, 1996).
On October 14, 1996, appellant and the State jointly sought to reopen appellant's case in this Court. On November 5, 1996, this Court granted the joint motion to reopen the case and directed the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to "determine the impartiality of Judge Richard M. Stanley, Jr. as a basis for a new sentencing hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850." Porter v. State, No. 85,410 (Fla. order filed Nov. 5, 1996).
Appellant then sought an order from this court disqualifying the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit from conducting the evidentiary hearing. Appellant also requested that the scope of the hearing be expanded to include the issue of Judge Stanley's lack of impartiality not only as a basis for a new sentencing hearing but also as a basis for a new trial. We denied both the disqualification and the request to expand the issue. Porter v. State, 688 So. 2d 318 (Fla.1997).
The circuit court held the evidentiary hearing on January 17, 1997. In its decision ordering the evidentiary hearing, the Eleventh Circuit succinctly stated the crucial necessity for the impartiality of a trial judge as to sentencing in capital cases in Florida by stating:
446 U.S.  at 242, 100 S. Ct.  at 1613 (citations omitted).
Porter, 49 F.3d  at 1487-88.
Our precedent is clearly consistent with this statement:
Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833, 839 (Fla. 1988). In Zeigler v. State, 452 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1984), we recognized that a trial judge's lack of impartiality would require a resentencing if it were proven that the trial judge had told the prosecutor, "[y]ou get me one first-degree murder conviction and I'll fry the son of a bitch." Id. at 539.
In sum, due process under Florida's capital sentencing procedure requires a trial judge who is not precommitted to a life sentence or a death sentence but rather is committed to impartially weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As we have repeatedly stressed, a trial judge's weighing of statutory aggravating factors and statutory and nonstatutory mitigating circumstances is the essential ingredient in the constitutionality of our death penalty statute. Grossman, 525 So. 2d  at 839. It is for this very reason that we have found it essential for trial judges to adequately set forth their weighing analyses in detailed written orders. Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300, 318-19 (Fla. 1997); Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415, 419 (Fla.1990).
We therefore review the record of the evidentiary hearing and the trial judge's determination that Judge Stanley was an impartial sentencer for the purpose of analyzing whether the evidence supports the legal conclusion that Judge Stanley was impartial, as constitutionally required. In this review, we defer to the present trial judge's resolution of issues of fact. However, the issue as to whether, based upon the facts presented at the evidentiary hearing, Judge Stanley met the required standard of impartiality is an issue of law subject to our review as a matter of law. We conclude that the legal effect of this evidence is that Judge Stanley's impartiality did not satisfy the constitutional requirement that the sentencer of appellant for the first-degree murder convictions be impartial and not predisposed to a sentence of either life or death.[1]
*197 Based on our legal conclusion, appellant is entitled to a complete new sentencing before an impartial trial judge. In view of the circumstances of the resentencing, we believe that it is appropriate that the Chief Justice of this Court appoint the trial judge to preside over the resentencing. This trial judge will be appointed by separate order.
Since we conclude that appellant is entitled to a resentencing proceeding before a new sentencing judge, the next question concerns how our conclusion is to affect the new judge's decision as to whether to accept the jury's recommendation of a life sentence. This Court has previously reviewed whether Judge Stanley's decision to override the jury's recommendation was sustainable on the basis of our legal standard for overriding a jury's recommendation set forth in Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla.1975). In our first review in this case, we said:
Porter, 400 So. 2d  at 8.
Porter, 429 So. 2d  at 296.
In our third review, we stated: "We also point out that we considered the sufficiency of the evidence and the application of Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1975), on Porter's direct appeals." Porter, 478 So. 2d  at 36.
In our fourth review, appellant challenged successively the trial judge's jury override. We held that "`even though the jury override might not have been sustained today, it is the law of the case.' Johnson v. Dugger, 523 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla.1988)." Porter, 559 So. 2d  at 203. We then quoted Kennedy v. Wainwright, 483 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 890, 107 S. Ct. 291, 93 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986), in which we held that "[i]t is only in the case of error that prejudicially denies fundamental constitutional rights that this Court will revisit a matter previously settled by the affirmance of a conviction or sentence." Porter, 559 So. 2d  at 203. We concluded that "Porter has shown no such constitutional infirmity, and, therefore, this issue is procedurally barred." Id.
The issue next becomes whether the constitutional infirmity concerning due process which we find based upon the determination that the trial judge lacked impartiality overcomes the procedural bar we *198 found to exist in our 1990 review. We find that the infirmity does overcome the procedural bar because it is the trial judge who must make the determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis in the record for the jury's recommendation. The trial judge makes this decision not only on the basis of the record before the jury but also upon the record as developed at the part of sentencing proceeding that is solely before the trial judge. Heiney v. State, 620 So. 2d 171, 174 (Fla.1993); Stevens v. State, 552 So. 2d 1082, 1087-88 (Fla.1989).
The present procedural status of this case is similar to those cases in which we have reversed a trial judge's decision to override a jury when we have determined that a defendant's counsel was ineffective in a penalty phase even though the jury had recommended a life sentence. In Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321 (Fla.1994), we dealt with such a circumstance:
Torres-Arboleda, 636 So. 2d  at 1326 (citations omitted).
Similarly, in the resentencing before the new trial judge, appellant is entitled to the jury's recommendation of a life sentence. In this resentencing, there shall be a consideration of the entire evidence presented by the State and by appellant. This shall include the evidence presented to the jury in the guilt and penalty phases in 1978, which will require the court to review the transcript of the testimony and exhibits admitted into evidence in the trial before the jury.[2] The State and appellant shall be provided an opportunity to present any additional admissible evidence that each chooses to present at an evidentiary hearing. The State and appellant shall be permitted to submit to the trial judge written memoranda in support of their respective arguments as to the jury override and to have an oral hearing before the judge.
Following the presentation of evidence and argument, the trial judge shall initially determine whether, based upon the entire record, an override of the jury's life recommendation is appropriate pursuant to the standard for a jury override we established in Tedder and as we applied that standard in Torres-Arboleda. If the trial judge decides that the jury's life recommendations are not to be overridden, the trial judge shall enter a written sentencing order setting forth the reasons for the trial judge's decision and sentencing appellant to life sentences without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years with credit for time served. The trial judge is to decide whether the life sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively. See § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1977). If the trial judge decides that the jury's recommendation of a life sentence is to be overridden, the trial judge shall set forth in the sentencing order the reasons for this decision and shall enter a sentencing order conforming to our direction in Campbell.
Appellant also has renewed his claim that, upon a finding that the trial court was not impartial, we should grant a new trial of the guilt phase of his case. We do not agree. The issue upon which we have determined *199 Judge Stanley to lack the necessary impartiality involves only the sentencing phase of appellant's trial. This is similar our holding in Zeigler: "In the instant case, however, we have a statement which, if true, would possibly support resentencing, not reversal, of conviction. The statement reflects only on the sentencing attitude of the judge." Zeigler, 452 So. 2d  at 540.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial judge and order a new sentencing phase to be held in accord with this decision before a trial judge to be appointed by the Chief Justice of this Court.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and WELLS, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., recused.
ANSTEAD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority's conclusion that "the trial judge erred as a matter of law in finding that Judge Stanley was impartial." Majority op. at 1. I dissent, however, from the majority's conclusion that its finding of bias and lack of impartiality does not mandate that a new trial be granted on both the guilt and penalty phases of the defendant's case. Unless I am mistaken, I believe it is a fundamental principle of our justice system that a defendant is entitled to an impartial judge in all phases of the judicial proceedings.
[1]  The following statement from this evidence, which is part of a colloquy during the evidentiary hearing, demonstrates why we reach this legal conclusion:

Q: Did you indicate in the deposition that two days ago, in reference to your disagreement with the jury's recommendation, that it was because of your inner nature that you disagreed with it?
A [by Judge Stanley]: Because I felt that it should have been something else, yes, if that's what you want.
Q: Well, no. I mean the question is, do you recall using the words, the basismy inner nature was your answer?
A: What you're trying to get me to say is I'll just lay this out for you. I believe that if the same thing had happened, that I would have killed Mr. Porter. Mr. Porter wouldn't have had to be put to death. But if he had done that to my family, I'd a killed him.
[2]  Within thirty days of the appointment of the new trial judge, the trial judge shall hold a status conference at which issues, if any, as to what constitutes the record will be heard. Appellant himself may attend this hearing by telephone conferencing.