Opinion ID: 407646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Explain Prior Conviction

Text: 46 Under the Florida capital sentencing statute, prior criminal conduct by a defendant is relevant to sentencing in two respects. First, a defendant's prior conviction for another capital felony or ( ) a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person may be considered by the sentencer as an aggravating circumstance. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.141(5)(b) (West Supp. 1982). Second, that (t)he defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity is a statutory mitigating circumstance. Id. § 921.141(6)(a). 47 At the sentencing phase of appellant's trial, the prosecution introduced a certified copy of a judgment of conviction against appellant for Breaking and Entering Without Permission. The defense attorney made no attempt to explain the circumstances of this conviction, and appellant claims that the facts render the conviction insignificant either as an aggravating circumstance or to rebut the mitigating one. 27 The magistrate accepted the explanation of the conviction provided by appellant in his written proffer and concluded that defense counsel should have presented these facts in rebuttal. No testimony or other evidence was presented to the magistrate either by the state or by appellant concerning the circumstances surrounding appellant's prior offense. 48 The district judge rejected the magistrate's conclusion that the defense attorney should have presented evidence to explain or rebut the prior conviction. Citing United States v. Gray, 565 F.2d 881, 887 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 955, 98 S.Ct. 1587, 55 L.Ed.2d 807 (1978), the district court stated that, in its view, the magistrate mistakenly accepted speculative and inconcrete claims of 'what might have been if.'  The judge's primary basis for disagreement, however, was his conclusion, after reviewing the record of the penalty hearing, that (t)he matter of Petitioner's prior conviction was a low profile subject which, in terms of Petitioner's best interests at that time, might well have been handled by his counsel with utmost skill in choosing to leave it that way. Neither the magistrate's nor the judge's conclusions on this issue were based on any testimony at the evidentiary hearing; the opinions of each and the disagreement between them were based solely on appellant's written proffer and on a review of the trial transcript for the penalty phase. Hence Louis v. Blackburn, supra, provides no basis for challenging this portion of this district judge's order.