Opinion ID: 75849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Triggerman Evidence

Text: Petitioner argues that Counsel’s performance was constitutionally defective because he failed to present evidence that Petitioner was not the triggerman. He 14 identifies two such pieces of evidence: that Valdes had blood on his clothes matching Officer Griffis’s blood type, but that Petitioner did not; and that the murder weapon had been purchased by Valdes’s girlfriend and that Valdes had been in possession of the gun when he and Petitioner left to commit the crime. The Florida Supreme Court in its opinions has not discussed this particular ineffectiveness claim. The lack of words in the Florida Supreme Court opinions, however, does not lessen the deference that is to be given the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of Petitioner’s contention: we still can only grant relief if the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of the claim was directly contrary to, or was an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Wright v. Secretary for the Dept. of Corrections, 278 F.3d 1245, 1253-56 (11th Cir. 2002). We conclude that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on the issue was not unreasonable. We -- in this instance -- do not discuss the performance element of ineffective assistance of counsel because we conclude that the Florida Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded that no prejudice had been shown. A review of the penalty phase transcripts convinces us that Petitioner cannot establish that he was prejudiced by Counsel’s failure to introduce this evidence. During the penalty phase, the witnesses called by the prosecutor only testified about Van 15 Poyck’s past crimes and about the fact that he was on parole when the instant offense was committed. The prosecutor did not present additional evidence suggesting that Petitioner was the triggerman. Even more telling is the prosecutor’s closing argument. Petitioner’s being the triggerman played only a very minor role in the prosecutor’s argument. As aggravating factors, the prosecutor advanced these things: 1) that Petitioner was on parole when the crime was committed; 2) that the crime was committed for the purposes of effectuating an escape from prison; 3) that Petitioner knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons; and 4) that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a violent felony. The establishment of these elements did not require arguing that Petitioner was the triggerman. The prosecutor never argued that it had been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was the triggerman. The only time the prosecutor did argue that the evidence tended to show that Petitioner was the triggerman was in rebutting Petitioner’s argument that he was only an accomplice and played only a minor role in the crime.8 Even in rebutting that argument, however, the prosecutor relied heavily on the idea that, “[r]egardless 8 Florida law provides that a mitigating circumstance exists where “[t]he defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.141(6)(d). 16 of who the triggerman is,” death would still be appropriate. Rather than focusing the jury on who the triggerman was, the prosecutor stressed that Petitioner could not be considered a minor participant because he had been the one to come up with the idea of breaking O’Brien out of custody and had planned the crime. While the prosecutor did, on a few occasions in his closing argument, say that evidence in the case suggested that Petitioner was the triggerman, the main argument made by the prosecutor was that the death penalty -- because of the four aggravating factors and because Petitioner was not a minor participant in the underlying violent felony -- was an appropriate sentence for Petitioner, regardless of who actually shot Officer Griffis. Especially because the prosecutor’s main argument was that the death penalty was appropriate regardless of who the triggerman was, we see no reasonable probability that, if Counsel had presented the additional evidence that Petitioner was not the triggerman, the outcome of the sentencing phase would have been different. The Florida Supreme Court could reasonably conclude that no prejudice existed. The Florida Supreme Court did reasonably conclude that the triggerman-evidence claim entitled Petitioner to no relief. 17 II. Denial of Continuance Second, Petitioner argues that the trial court deprived him Due Process and his right to counsel and a particularized death sentence when the court failed to provide a continuance between the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Petitioner claims that Counsel had relied upon the trial court’s earlier promises to grant such a continuance and that Counsel had planned to conduct more extensive penalty phase investigations during the promised continuance. This claim is another one that is denied without discussion in the Florida Supreme Court’s opinions. Giving the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on this issue the proper deference, we conclude that the rejection of this claim was not unreasonable. The decision of whether to grant a continuance is reserved to the sound discretion of the trial court. See United States v. Bowe, 221 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2000); Gorby v. State, 630 So. 2d 544, 546 (Fla. 1993). Furthermore, to establish that a denial of a continuance was reversible error, a defendant must show that the denial caused “specific substantial prejudice.” United States v. Verderame, 51 F.3d 249, 251 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Fennie v. State, 648 So.2d 95, 97-98 (Fla. 1994). 18 We agree with the district court that the Florida Supreme Court was not unreasonable in rejecting this claim, because the Florida Supreme Court could conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. This case is not one in which the trial court had been promising a continuance all along, only to pull the rug out from under Petitioner at the last minute. Nor is it a case in which a defendant has been brought to trial shortly after being charged and defendant has simply lacked sufficient time to prepare a defense. The only indication that the trial court ever promised a lengthy (1-3 week) continuance comes from the testimony of Petitioner’s trial lawyers. This supposed promise, however, was made off the record. Furthermore, the promise stands in contrast to the record statements made by the trial court throughout the proceedings. The district court in this case found that “[d]efense counsel were aware during the guilt phase that the penalty phase would commence virtually immediately after the guilt phase.” (District Court Order at 21). Counsels’ acts suggest that they knew the penalty phase would begin shortly after the guilt phase. The district court found many indications from the trial court to the Petitioner that only a short time between the guilt and penalty phase would be given. Moreover, at the end of the guilt phase, it was Counsel who insisted that the jury be 19 “sequestered tonight in the event they have to come back tomorrow.” The sequestration was made on the assumption that the jury would return the next day for sentencing, and Counsel made no indication that he objected to beginning the penalty phase the next day. The district court’s finding that Petitioner’s lawyers understood that little time would be given between the guilt and penalty phases was not clearly erroneous.9 Given those facts, the Florida Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of the claim based on the denial of a continuance was reasonable. III. Ineffective Assistance on Direct Appeal Petitioner further argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer on direct appeal (“appellate counsel”) failed to present properly a state law claim based on peremptory challenges to jurors. Under Florida law, 9 In this case, we need not address the proper deference to give the implicit or unexpressed factual determinations made by the state court when it summarily denied this claim. Here, the state embraces the findings of the district court, so we will not decide whether federal courts are required to presume that the state courts, in rejecting Petitioner’s claim, resolved all factual questions in the government’s favor. 20 “the general rule [is] that it is reversible error for a court to force a party to use peremptory challenges on persons who should have been excused for cause, provided the party subsequently exhausts all of his or her peremptory challenges and an additional challenge is sought and denied.” Cummings v. State, 715 So. 2d 944, 948 (Fla. 1998).10 In this case, Petitioner identifies seven jurors who he says should have been dismissed for cause, but on whom he was forced to use peremptory challenges. To make out a claim like this one, a defendant, however, must also identify at least one juror who he wanted to challenge, but who he was forced to accept on the jury because he had run out of peremptory challenges. The alleged lawyer error here is that appellate counsel named the wrong two jurors. While appellate counsel should have named jurors Moody and Bradford (who did, in fact, sit on the jury), he instead named jurors Bruschi and Abefarmis. Bruschi and Abefarmis had, however, been dismissed for other reasons. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court 10 We recognize that federal law does not require reversal where a defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge on a juror who should have been dismissed for cause. See Ross v. Oklahoma, 108 S. Ct. 2273, 2278 (1988). Petitioner, however, is not claiming a direct violation of federal law with respect to jury composition. Instead, Petitioner is raising an ineffective assistance claim and arguing that he was prejudiced by his appellate lawyer’s failure to assert properly a valid state-law claim. 21 ruled that petitioner’s challenge to jury composition was “moot.” Van Poyck I, 564 So. 2d at 1070. In denying Petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition, the Florida Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s argument that appellate counsel was ineffective in presenting the jury-composition claim. In rejecting the ineffective-assistance-ofappellate-counsel claim, the Florida Supreme Court determined that Petitioner failed to establish the necessary prejudice: after reviewing the voir dire, the Florida Supreme Court wrote that “each of the seven persons repeatedly and unequivocally stated that he or she could render a verdict based solely on the evidence and the instructions given by the trial judge. We find nothing in this record that mandates that any of these venirepersons should have been excused for cause.” Van Poyck III, 715 So. 2d at 932-34.11 We accept that conclusion; Petitioner has not met his heavy burden of showing that it is unreasonable, either in fact or in law.12 11 Although the Florida Supreme Court did not explicitly address the venire of Bradford and Moody, the district court did. The district court wrote that “both Moody and Bradford were appropriately on the jury.” (District Court Order at 16.) For the reasons discussed below with respect to the other challenged jurors, we agree with that ruling. 12 Petitioner argues that the Florida Supreme Court’s statement on direct appeal that jurors Bruschi and Abefarmis should have been dismissed for cause required that court to hold, in the state habeas proceedings, that the jurors who are relevant to the claim should also have been dismissed for cause. This argument is without merit. The Florida Supreme Court’s statement that jurors Bruschi and 22 In Morgan v. Illinois, 112 S. Ct. 2222 (1992), the Supreme Court wrote that a trial court must exclude “those biased persons on the venire who as jurors would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt.” Id. at 2232. And, a trial court has a duty to question (or allow questioning of) prospective jurors to ensure that a person who would automatically vote for the death penalty is disqualified. See id. at 2230-31. Critical to the resolution of this claim is the Morgan court’s discussion of the kinds of questions that a defendant must be allowed to ask to allow the defendant to illustrate for the court which jurors were inalterably in favor of the death penalty. The extent of the Morgan court’s holding on this issue is only that generalized “can you be fair?” and “can you follow the law?” questions are insufficient. See id. at 2233-34. The jurors in Morgan were never specifically asked whether they understood that “being fair” and “following the law” might mean returning a life verdict. Abefarmis should have been dismissed for cause is only dicta, unnecessary to the decision. The Florida Supreme Court stated that the claim was “moot” because Bruschi and Abefarmis had been dismissed for other reasons. See Van Poyck I, 564 So. 2d at 1070. The “law of the case” doctrine does not apply to dicta. See Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 112 So. 2d 263, 267 n.6 (Fla. 1959); see also Golden v. State, 528 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988) (“The doctrine of the law of the case applies only to issues actually or impliedly presented and decided on appeal, and not to mere dicta.”) (emphasis added). 23 This case presents different facts. It is true that many of the challenged jurors expressed strong support for the death penalty; and some even initially suggested that, for certain crimes, they thought they would always return a death recommendation. Each juror, however, upon being instructed by the trial court on the law of Florida, not only said that he or she could be fair and follow the law, but also stated that he or she could return a life imprisonment recommendation if the facts and the law warranted it. In addition, each juror indicated, in response to questioning by the prosecution, that it would not be fair to defendants if juries returned a death recommendation in every case. We are aware of no Supreme Court case, and Petitioner has cited none, that has held that such a fact pattern requires reversal. And, we do not consider the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion to have been an unreasonable application of Morgan or any other Supreme Court case decided before the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. IV. Consideration of Invalid Aggravating Factor Petitioner also claims that the trial court committed error by considering, and allowing the jury to consider, that he was the triggerman. Error does exist where the sentencer relies upon an invalid factor. See Mills v. Maryland, 108 S. Ct. 1860, 24 1866 (1988). In this case, Petitioner argues that his being the triggerman was an invalid consideration because it is not supported by the evidence. In making this argument, Petitioner relies upon the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on his direct appeal, where the court ruled that insufficient evidence existed to prove that Van Poyck was the triggerman. See Van Poyck I, 564 So. 2d at 1069. As the Florida Supreme Court noted, however, another basis for the imposition of the death penalty existed: felony murder. The felony murder argument was supported by the evidence and is a sufficient basis for imposing the death penalty. See id. at 1070-71. The Florida Supreme Court’s ruling sustaining the imposition of the death penalty was not unreasonable. Where, as here, a jury is presented with two theories of the case, one supported by the evidence and the other not, we should presume that the jury relied on the supported theory. See Sochor v. Florida, 112 S. Ct. 2114, 2122 (1992). We have no good reason to think that the jury relied on something more than the factually supported theory of felony murder. Petitioner points to the jury’s verdict form from the guilt phase of the trial, which indicates that at least one -- but not all -- of the jurors would have convicted Petitioner on the basis of premeditated murder. The question, however, is what the jury considered at the penalty phase of the trial. 25 In deciding this question, it seems useful to look at the closing arguments made during the penalty phase. As discussed above, whether Petitioner was actually the triggerman was of only minimal importance during the prosecutor’s closing. Never did the prosecutor argue triggerman status as an aggravating factor that would justify the death penalty. And, in rebutting Petitioner’s argument that Petitioner’s minor role in the crime should be considered a mitigating factor, the prosecutor focused chiefly on Petitioner’s role in orchestrating and planning the crime, not on whether Petitioner was the triggerman. The prosecutor’s expressed argument was that Petitioner deserved death whether or not Petitioner was the triggerman. Petitioner also argues that the trial court improperly relied upon his being the triggerman. Again, the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of these claims was not unreasonable. The sole indicator that the trial court considered Petitioner to be the triggerman is a passage in the order imposing the death penalty, in which the trial court stated “the State clearly presented competent and substantial evidence as to the crime of first degree felony murder and/or first degree pre-meditated murder and in reality presented competent evidence that [Petitioner] may have in fact been the individual who pulled the trigger and shot Fred Griffis.” The trial court never 26 stated that it found Petitioner, in fact, to have been the triggerman or that the court considered Petitioner’s triggerman status to be an aggravating factor justifying the death penalty. The only aggravating factors the trial court found to exist were the four argued by the prosecutor in his closing, and none of those factors is based upon triggerman status. In arguing that the trial court’s alleged error requires reversal of the death penalty, Petitioner relies heavily on our decision in Delap v. Dugger, 890 F.2d 285 (11th Cir. 1989). In Delap, the trial court at defendant’s first trial had rendered a judgment of acquittal on a charge of felony murder. Then at the sentencing phase of the defendant’s retrial (at which he had been convicted of premeditated murder), the court had imposed a death sentence. The trial court explicitly relied on the specific statutory factor that the murder occurred during the commission of a felony. See Delap, 890 F.2d at 307. The elements and burden of proof for felony murder as a basis for conviction and for “murder in the course of a felony” as an aggravating factor were almost identical. We declared that the imposition of the death penalty on such a basis violated the double jeopardy clause. See id. at 31719. 27 Here, the facts are significantly different.13 The prosecutor did not argue triggerman status as an aggravating factor. And in listing the aggravating factors it had determined to be present, the trial court only listed the four factors argued by the prosecutor; triggerman status was not mentioned as an aggravating factor. That the trial court concluded that the prosecution had “presented competent evidence that [Petitioner] may have in fact been the individual who pulled the trigger and shot Fred Griffis” does not mean that the trial court had found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Petitioner was the triggerman. And, it certainly does not mean that the trial court relied upon Petitioner’s role as triggerman as some kind of aggravating factor. As such, the rule of Delap has not been violated, and Petitioner has made no showing that the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of his claim was unreasonable. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on this ground must therefore be denied. 13 We again stress that, even if the underlying facts of Delap were identical to the underlying facts of this case, Petitioner would still not necessarily prevail. Petitioner’s burden is to show that the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion was an unreasonable application of federal law according to the United States Supreme Court. Reasonable judges can disagree on the proper interpretation of the United States Supreme Court’s precedents; a state court ruling that is contrary to Eleventh Circuit law might still be a reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. 28 Based upon the above considerations, we conclude that the district court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus was proper. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 29