Opinion ID: 1100536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing Testimony

Text: In his second claim, Anthony alleges that the evidentiary hearing testimonies of four witnesses should exculpate him. At the hearing, trial counsel testified that his theory for Anthony's defense stressed that Anthony was not the active participant in the crimes: He was not the one who fired the fatal shot .... and ... was not the one who wielded the knife. The testimonies of these witnesses, he argues, are newly discovered evidence proving that Jeffrey was the leader and the more violent and aggressive of the two brothers. The witnesses in question are Jeffrey, Susan Griffith (Anthony and Jeffrey's mother), Katrina Bergenty (Anthony and Jeffrey's sister), and Dr. Clifford Levin (a psychologist who evaluated Anthony). At the hearing, Jeffrey testified that he and Anthony did not have any defined older/younger brother attitude. They were [a]lmost like equals. He stated, If one of us wanted the other to do something... we would ask them. He never made Anthony do anything, although, in late 1991, he decided for Anthony that they would not move with their mother to Georgia. He also got a job for Anthony and helped him with work. In addition, Jeffrey testified that he could be very violent. One minute [he] could be laughing and joking and the next minute [he] could ... just start swinging on people. Anthony, however, was [v]ery laid back. Jeffrey refused to describe Anthony as the mastermind behind the crimes, which they never planned in great detail. Anthony did approach him about committing a robbery. Anthony asked him if he could borrow a knife, but Jeffrey refused. Jeffrey admitted that Anthony originally planned to rob the Taco Bell with someone else. Anthony had been an employee there and was familiar with its procedures and employees. Nevertheless, Jeffrey became involved, but they never discussed their roles. On cross-examination, Jeffrey testified that, when they arrived at the Taco Bell, Anthony went inside to see who was working. After he returned to the car, Jeffrey suggested cutting or injuring himself and using that as a way to get inside. Anthony advised against it because the employees would call the police, and Jeffrey agreed. Jeffrey stated, however, that he felt like he was in charge because, at one point, Anthony wanted to leave and Jeffrey persuaded him to stay. When they restrained Van Ness and Mason outside the restaurant, Jeffrey pointed a gun at one of them, and Anthony pointed a knife at the other. After gathering them with the other two employees inside, Jeffrey watched three of them while Anthony went with the manager to get the money. Jeffrey testified that Anthony knew where the money was kept, it's logical he would go get it. Anthony returned with the money in canvas bank bags. Jeffrey told him to take it out of the bags, and he complied. They then took turns tying up the employees and told them to sit on the floor while they went into the manager's office. Anthony was worried that the employees could identify him. Jeffrey offered to shoot them, and Anthony told him it was his decision. Jeffrey stated that Anthony could not have stopped him. Jeffrey told Anthony to move the employees into the freezer, and Anthony complied. Jeffrey followed them into the freezer while Anthony remained behind him. Jeffrey then fired three shots until the gun failed. He turned around, took the knife from Anthony, and stabbed one of the female employees twice. He stated that Anthony remained behind him but never attempted to stop him. Afterward, they walked out to the car, and Jeffrey directed Anthony to drive to Park's where he could dispose of the rope, gloves, gun and knife. Jeffrey decided they would tell their mother that they were at a party, and Anthony relayed that story to her. Griffith testified that Anthony was more of a follower while Jeffrey was more of a leader. Jeffrey would get mad faster, and Anthony would ... let him have his way. She also stated that Jeffrey used to own a gun and was fascinated with knives and collect[ed] large knives. By contrast, Anthony had no interest in weapons. On cross-examination, Griffith admitted that Jeffrey received counseling for his temper, which he became able to control for about a year and a half before the crimes. Nevertheless, Jeffrey punched things when he was angry, whereas Anthony never had such problems. Bergenty testified that Anthony was laid back while Jeffrey was more serious or not as laid back. Jeffrey had a shorter temper, and Anthony had a longer fuse before he [got] upset. He was easygoing ... instead of arguing ... he just went along with [Jeffrey]. She believed Jeffrey was more a leader. On cross-examination, she clarified that Anthony was not afraid of Jeffrey. Dr. Levin evaluated Anthony in 1992 and 1998 in preparation for penalty phase testimony. Before the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Levin also interviewed Jeffrey and reviewed the record of Jeffrey's psychologist. He concluded that Anthony was suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder. He stated that Anthony had an immature personality, a tendency to defer to others, withdraw into his family, ... a lack of ... a good sense of himself. He found that Jeffrey described himself as someone Anthony would defer to for major decisions. In addition, Jeffrey had a relationship with [Anthony] of interdependence and aggression. Anthony defer[red] to his brother in order to maintain peace. Dr. Levin added that Anthony made some independent thoughts in planning this robbery, but ... was the more passive... dependent personality. He believed that Anthony had difficulty planning and initiating the robbery and concluded that there was substantial domination of Jeffrey over Anthony. [T]he murder and attacks ... would not have taken place if Anthony was acting alone. Furthermore, Anthony had difficulty making everyday decisions .... difficulty ... expressing disagreement. [H]is decision making is not autonomous. Anthony argues that the circuit court erred in discrediting these testimonies. We disagree. The relevant standards are the requirements for newly discovered evidence. See Robinson, 865 So.2d at 1262 (First ... the evidence `must have been unknown ... at the time of trial ....' Second, the ... evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.) (citation omitted). In addition, the trial court is required to `consider all newly discovered evidence which would be admissible' at trial and then evaluate the `weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced at the trial.' Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Jones, 709 So.2d at 521). When reviewing a court's application of the above law to a rule 3.850 motion following an evidentiary hearing, we apply the following standard of review: As long as the trial court's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, [we] will not substitute [our] judgment... on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses.... Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In denying relief, the circuit court found the testimonies of Jeffrey, Griffith, Bergenty, and Dr. Levin to be incredible because they contradicted the testimonies of the three surviving victims at resentencing. The victims in question were Derek Mason, Kimberly Gordon, and Gary Robinson. Mason testified that, once Anthony and Jeffrey brought them inside the restaurant, Anthony said, go inside and get the manager. He also stated that Anthony offered to let them smoke and directed those who were not smoking to stand so that their hands could be tied. Mason said that Anthony pretty much told Jeffrey what to do. Gordon, the manager on duty, testified that, when she saw Anthony and Jeffrey holding Mason and Van Ness, Anthony ordered them to the back of the restaurant. Anthony then told her that he knew she had the keys to the safe and ordered her to go to the front of the restaurant with him to get the money. Like Mason, Gordon also stated that Anthony offered to let them smoke and directed those who were not smoking to go with him. When asked who did most of the talking, Gordon replied, Anthony was doingI never heard Jeffrey talk. To her, [i]t appeared that Anthony was in charge .... [b]ecause he did all of the talking. She added that Anthony directed them into the freezer. Robinson also stated that Anthony led them into the freezer. When asked who he thought was in charge, Robinson replied, Anthony was doing most of the talking. Given this testimony at resentencing, the trial court found as follows: [T]he Court finds the exculpatory evidence... to be incredible. The defendant's brother has clear motive to fabricate or exaggerate now that he no longer faces the death penalty. On the other hand, if there was any reason for the victims [at resentencing] to contrive their testimony to prejudice one brother over the other, it would be contrived against Jeffrey.... Yet the victims testified without exception that it was the defendant who was in charge. After weighing all the evidence, the Court finds that there is no probability that the defendant would receive a recommendation of life from a jury upon retrial. The record shows that the circuit court properly applied the above law. Competent, substantial evidence supports its findings. Consequently, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the court on this matter. We find no error.