Opinion ID: 1814310
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Independent Act Instruction

Text: In his first postconviction claim, Williams asserts that his counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase because he failed to request a special jury instruction relative to the independent act defense. At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, defense counsel conceded that an independent act instruction may have been appropriate but offered no explanation of why he did not seek such an instruction other than his confidence that Williams would not be found guilty because he did not actually participate in the murders. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be analyzed under the standard espoused in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order to be entitled to relief, Williams must meet two requirements: First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed 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 a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Because both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact, this Court employs a mixed standard of review, deferring to the circuit court's factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing the circuit court's legal conclusions de novo. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 771-72 (Fla.2004). In Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1994), this Court addressed a similar claim. Specifically, in that case, Lovette and his codefendant, Wyatt, escaped from prison and fled. Id. at 1305. While on the run, they robbed a Domino's store, holding an employee, the store manager, and his wife at gunpoint. Id. Lovette thought his codefendant was going to lock the robbery victims in a closet, but instead, he heard gunshots. Id. at 1306. The two then fled the store in a stolen car. Id. At trial, Lovette requested an instruction on independent acts, alleging that he should not be held responsible for the murders since they were outside the common design of the robbery. Id. The trial court denied the request, and this Court affirmed, stressing that [o]ne who participates with another in a common criminal scheme is guilty of all crimes committed in furtherance of that scheme regardless of whether he or she physically participates in that crime. Id. (quoting Jacobs v. State, 396 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla.1981)). Thus, even though Lovette did not fire the shots that killed the victims or agree to the murders, we concluded the evidence did not support an independent act instruction as to the murders because the evidence demonstrated Lovette was a willing participant in the robbery and the killings furthered the robbery in that they assisted the robbery's execution and lessened the immediate detection of the robbery. Id. at 1307. Williams' sole basis to support his assertion that the independent act theory should apply to his case is based on the fact that he was not in Pensacola at the time of the killings but simply sent the codefendants to Pensacola to bring back his drugs and money; thus, the killings were the independent acts of the codefendants. However, as a perpetrator in the underlying felony, as in Lovette, Williams is deemed a principal in any crime committed to further the initial common criminal design. Here, it is apparent that the murders furthered the commission of the underlying felonies, by helping the codefendants locate the missing money and drugs and helping the codefendants elude detection after they recovered the drugs and money. Williams has failed to show how his counsel could be ineffective in failing to request a jury instruction which did not apply to the facts of this case. In addition, it is apparent that Williams was charged with the murders because of his role in ordering the killings, and the jury rejected his denial of such a role. Hence, the jury implicitly rejected any claim of independent act.