Opinion ID: 78439
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Florida Post-Conviction & Habeas Proceedings

Text: In October 1987, Ferguson and his mother, Dorothy Ferguson, acting as next friend, filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which set forth six claims. For the purposes of this appeal, the relevant claims were an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim based on trial counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence with respect to statutory mitigating and a Hitchcock [2] claim based on the trial court's jury instructions regarding mitigating factors. Shortly thereafter, Ferguson moved to stay the proceedings on the grounds that he was incompetent to participate in them or to assist counsel by answering questions. The circuit court denied this motion in February 1989. Ferguson's counsel subsequently moved to disqualify the post-conviction judge based on ex parte contacts between the judge and the prosecutors. The circuit court denied this motion because it was untimely, was not in compliance with Florida procedural requirements, and did not provide an adequate factual foundation for the belief that the judge would be prejudiced against Ferguson. Ferguson's counsel then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition based on ex parte contacts between the judge and the prosecutors. The Florida Supreme Court denied this petition and the United States Supreme Court denied the subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari on the issue. See Ferguson v. Snyder, 493 U.S. 945, 110 S.Ct. 353, 354, 107 L.Ed.2d 341 (1989) (mem.) ( Snyder I ); Ferguson v. Snyder, 548 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1989) (table) ( Snyder II ). In September 1989, Ferguson filed a supplement to his 3.850 petition, in which he raised ten claims, including a claim regarding racially discriminatory peremptory challenges and a Brady [3] claim regarding improper prosecutorial withholding of evidence. In response to a motion by the State, the circuit court struck many of the claims in Ferguson's original and supplemental petitions, including his peremptory challenge claim. [4] The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in May 1990 on the remaining claims and issued an order the following month denying the remainder of Ferguson's 3.850 motion. One month later, Ferguson moved to supplement his 3.850 petition with an additional ground for relief based on the State's failure to correct false testimony presented at the sentencing phase of the Carol City trial. The circuit court dismissed this motion as untimely. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the 3.850 motion. See Ferguson v. State, 593 So.2d 508, 513 (Fla.1992) ( Ferguson IV ). Ferguson also petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus around the same time, which the court denied. See Ferguson v. Singletary, 632 So.2d 53, 59 (Fla.1993) ( Ferguson V ). In his petition, he raised four claims, only one of which is relevant for this appealthat he was resentenced without impaneling a new jury or holding an evidentiary hearing. The Florida Supreme Court found that Ferguson had failed to preserve this issue before the circuit court and thus was procedurally barred from raising it in his petition.