Opinion ID: 1561405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ineffectiveness and Constitutional ViolationShackling

Text: Floyd next contends that his constitutional rights were violated when he was shackled during his capital murder trial without any determination by the court that shackling was necessary. Evidence offered during the evidentiary hearing established that the purported shackle consisted of a leg brace that Floyd was compelled to wear on his leg while he was in the courtroom and before the jury. According to Floyd, trial counsel was ineffective because he acquiesced to the continued shackling of his client, which was overtly visible to the jurors, and the trial court never polled the jurors to determine whether any of them had been prejudiced by the sight of Floyd in shackles. Floyd further asserts that even if the leg brace had been deemed necessary during the penalty phase, the court never gave a cautionary instruction to the jurors. Floyd contends that he was prejudiced because, when the jury saw him in shackles, they were led to believe that the court possessed evidence of future dangerousness and uncontrollable behavior, which implied that death would be the only proper penalty. In support of this claim, Floyd relies upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005), that courts cannot routinely place defendants in shackles or other physical restraints visible to the jury during the penalty phase of a capital proceeding. Id. at 633, 125 S.Ct. 2007 (emphasis supplied). However, the Court also clarified that this constitutional directive is not absolute: It permits a judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, to take account of special circumstances, including security concerns, that may call for shackling. In so doing, it accommodates the important need to protect the courtroom and its occupants. Id. Moreover, Deck, which was decided in 2005, does not apply retroactively. See Marquard v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 429 F.3d 1278, 1311 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1181, 126 S.Ct. 2356, 165 L.Ed.2d 283 (2006), and Floyd's criminal trial occurred in 2000. Although Deck does not apply to Floyd, [s]ince at least 1987, the law in Florida has been that shackling a defendant during the penalty phase without ensuring that his due process rights are protected is a sufficient ground for reversing a death sentence. Hill v. State, 921 So.2d 579, 585 (Fla.2006). A claim based on unconstitutional shackling, however, is procedurally barred unless raised on direct appeal. See Sireci v. State, 773 So.2d 34, 41 n. 11 (Fla.2000). Since a challenge to the leg brace worn by Floyd was not raised on direct appeal, this claim is procedurally barred. Conversely, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his shackling is properly presented in this collateral proceeding. See Hendrix v. State, 908 So.2d 412, 425 (Fla.2005); Marquard v. State, 850 So.2d 417, 431 (Fla. 2002); Sims v. State, 602 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1992). Our decision in Hendrix on the matter of shackling is instructive. There, the postconviction court found: At the evidentiary hearing Judge Lockett, the Judge who presided over the trial, and Art Newcombe, the bailiff in charge of security during the Defendant's trial, as well as the testimony of various attorneys and even a witness who was present at the trial all testified that the jury would not have been able to see Mr. Hendrix's shackles. Further, Mr. Newcombe testified that he was aware, prior to trial from the deputies at the Lake County Jail, that a shank made from an air conditioning louver was found in the Defendant's cell approximately two and a half months before the trial. He also said that about a month after finding the shank, Mr. Hendrix asked [one] of the cleanup men at the jail to get him a louvered slat from an air conditioning unit. The Defendant had also been implicated in an escape plot with another prisoner, just three weeks before trial. Hendrix, 908 So.2d at 425 (quoting trial court's order). This Court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the use of shackles because: It is highly unlikely that objecting to the shackles would have produced any results, particularly where both the judge and the bailiff knew that Hendrix was an escape risk and was found with a weapon in his cell. Moreover, the court undertook very careful methods to ensure that the jury was not aware of the shackles. Second, Hendrix has failed to show any prejudice. As the postconviction court found, all witnesses testified that the shackles were not visible to the jury, and no testimony was presented to show that the jury or anybody else even heard Hendrix's shackles during the trial. As there is competent, substantial evidence to support the postconviction court's factual findings and, further, as Hendrix has failed to show that the court erred relative to its legal conclusions, we deny this claim. Id. at 425-26. Furthermore, in Stewart v. State, 549 So.2d 171, 174 (Fla.1989), this Court approved the use of shackles where they were unobtrusive, the jury had no opportunity to see the defendant walk in shackles, the shackles were barely visible under the table, and defendant was a high-risk prisoner. Under the facts of the present case, Floyd fails to establish that his counsel was deficient. Trial counsel actually objected to the proposed use of cuffs and leg shackles during the penalty phase, and his objection was successful. The trial court ordered that the shackles be removed and that a leg brace be used instead. With regard to this brace, there was competent, substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the postconviction court that not even trial counsel was aware of the brace worn by Floyd. The brace was attached to Floyd's leg, and was worn under his pants so the only time the brace could have been seen was if Floyd sat down and his pant leg moved up. Moreover, even if counsel had been aware of the brace, it is unlikely that an objection to the use of the brace would have been successful in light of the unobtrusiveness of the restraint measure and the need to protect the occupants in the small courtroom from Floyd, who was short-tempered and had already killed two people. Furthermore, without presenting any evidence indicating that anyone in the courtroom especially the jurorsnoticed the brace, Floyd fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the failure of counsel to assert further challenges. Accordingly, Floyd is not entitled to relief based on this constitutional/ineffectiveness claim. [14]