Opinion ID: 1882486
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: order denying amended motion for post conviction relief

Text: THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon application of the defendant on an Amended Motion for Post Conviction Relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedures 3.850. This Court, upon review of the defendant's motion, Amended Motion, State's Response to Amended Motion, Transcripts of the Re-sentencing Proceedings, Supreme Court Opinion in Knight v. State, 746 So.2d 423 (Fla.1998), the Sentencing Order of the trial court in this cause re-sentencing the defendant to death, all documents submitted in-camera for review, after hearing argument of counsel and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, it is: FOUND, ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 1. That the defendant was charged by indictment on August 24, 1974, for the First Degree Murder of Lillian Gans and Sidney Gans. 2. That the matter was originally tried in calendar year 1975 whereupon the defendant was found guilty as charged and the jury recommended the imposition of the death penalty for both murders. 3. The trial court adjudicated the defendant guilty and imposed the sentence of death upon the defendant for each of the murders. 4. The defendant appealed these convictions and sentences to the Florida Supreme Court which were affirmed, Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla.1976). Thereafter, the defendant sought various forms of collateral relief from the Federal Courts which ultimately resulted in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the defendant's sentence and remanding for resentencing. Knight v. Dugger , 863 F.2[d] 705 (11th Cir.1988). The defendant was returned to the Eleventh Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on or about May of 1990, in connection with the resentencing proceedings. 5. The re-sentencing proceedings ultimately commenced on January 23, 1996, with the culmination of the trial court's resentencing the defendant to death on February 20, 1996. 6. The death sentences were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Knight v. State, 746 So.2d 423 (Fla.1998), cert. denied [528 U.S. 990,] 120 S.Ct. 459[, 145 L.Ed.2d 370] (1999). 7. The defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Relief was due to be filed on or before November 8, 2000. 8. The defendant's Motion for Post Conviction Relief (Shell motion) was filed on November 7, 2000. 9. Conflict free counsel was appointed on January 24, 2001. 10. Various hearings were held in the interim concerning public disclosure requests. 11. Defendant's Amended Motion for Post Conviction Relief was filed on March 23, 2002, with the State responding to the Amended Motion on September 3, 2002. 12. In addressing the 28 claims filed by the defendant, this Court is governed by the standard of review that a defendant is entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing on a Post-Conviction Relief Motion unless, (1) the motion, files and records in the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, or (2) the Motion or the particular claim is legally insufficient. The Defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case based upon a legally valid claim. Mere conclusory allegations are not sufficient to meet this burden. Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055 (Fla.2000). 13. The burden of persuasion is on a defendant to prove, by a preponderance of competent evidence, that counsel's performance was unreasonable. See Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 668,] 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064[, 80 L.Ed.2d 674] (1984). The standard for counsel's performance is reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065. The test for ineffectiveness is not whether counsel could have done more; perfection is not required. Nor is the test whether the best criminal defense attorneys might have done more. Instead the test is . . . whether what they did was within the `wide range of reasonable professional assistance.' Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1518 (11th Cir. 1995). (citations omitted). 14. In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must demonstrate counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless the defendant makes such showing it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted in a break down in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687[, 104 S.Ct. 2052]. 15. To establish prejudice during the penalty phase the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, absent trial counsel's error, the sentencer would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. Cherry v. State, 781 So.2d 1040 (Fla.2000) quoting Strickland 466 U.S. at 695[, 104 S.Ct. 2052]. 16. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet a defendant's burden of establishing a prima facie case that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. Freeman v. State, supra . 17. The defendant has filed 28 claims in the Amended Motion seeking post-conviction relief and are addressed hereafter in this Order.