Opinion ID: 1828411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Denied Without Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Owen argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying several of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and his claims based upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). An evidentiary hearing must be held whenever the movant makes a facially sufficient claim that requires a factual determination. Amendments to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro. 3.851, 3.852, & 3.993, 772 So.2d 488, 491 n. 2 (Fla.2000). Postconviction claims may be summarily denied when they are legally insufficient, should have been brought on direct appeal, or are positively refuted by the record. Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852, 868 (Fla.2007). A court's decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing is subject to de novo review. See State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla.2003).
Owen argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to sufficiently challenge on retrial the admission of Owen's statements to law enforcement officers. We find no error in the summary denial because each of Owen's proposed grounds for suppression is without merit. Allegations that counsel was ineffective for not pursuing meritless arguments are legally insufficient to state a claim for postconviction relief. See Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992) (holding counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make meritless argument). First, Owen asserts that counsel was deficient for not arguing that Owen's confession should be suppressed because law enforcement officers lacked probable cause to arrest Owen when he was seized. The trial court did not err in summarily denying this subclaim because it is legally insufficient and procedurally barred. On direct appeal from Owen's original conviction, this Court rejected prior appellate counsel's argument that Owen's confession should have been suppressed on the basis that he was illegally seized after finding that the police had probable cause to arrest Owen. Owen I, 560 So.2d at 210. To the extent that this Court authorized relitigating the admissibility of Owen's confession in Owen II, it did so only in the context of whether law enforcement officers violated Owen's right to remain silent. All other issues decided in Owen I became the law of the case. Owen's retrial counsel did not err by not rearguing the seizure issue because the finding that the police had probable cause was the law of the case. In an attempt to avoid the effect of this Court's decision in Owen I, Owen argues that his counsel at his first trial was ineffective for failing to argue that Owen was seized on May 29, 1984, rather than on May 30, 1984, as three law enforcement officers testified during the hearing on Owen's motion to suppress. We find that the postconviction trial court properly denied this claim. During his first direct appeal, Owen filed a supplemental pro se brief with this Court. In that brief, Owen argued that he was illegally seized when he was stopped while walking down the sidewalk at approximately 10:30 AM on May 29th, 1984, by a Boca Raton police officer who was acting on a photograph which looked similar to the appellant. In support of his argument, Owen filed an appendix to his brief that included two Advisement of Rights forms. One form was signed Dana L. Brown, Owen's alias, and dated 1:10 p.m., May 29, 1984. The other form was signed Duane E. Owen, and dated 5:45 p.m., May 29, 1984. Thus, when this Court held that the police had more than founded suspicion, they had probable cause to stop and seize Owen, see Owen I, 560 So.2d at 210, this Court had before it that which is now raised as the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Given this record, the postconviction trial court did not err in summarily denying Owen's claim. Owen's postconviction claim reargues the same legal issue, based on the same factual allegations, that was raised in his direct appeal and thus is procedurally barred. Moreover, Owen's postconviction allegations fail to state a prima facie claim of prejudice. Owen's allegation that numerous law enforcement documents show that Mr. Owen was held in the unlawful custody of the Boca Raton Police Department, including the rights forms signed Dana Brown and Duane Owen on May 29, 1984, and an evidence log with the same date does not undermine confidence in these proceedings because the majority of this information was presented to this Court on direct appeal. Second, Owen asserts that counsel was deficient for not arguing that Owen's confession should be suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment [8] right to counsel. Owen argues that his right to counsel in the Slattery murder case attached at his first appearance on an unrelated burglary charge, where the facts of the homicide were used to increase his bond from $1000 to $100,000. The trial court did not err in denying this subclaim because it is legally insufficientthe asserted ground for suppression is without merit as a matter of law. [9] This Court has explained that the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel is `offense specific' and applies only to the offense or offenses with which the defendant has actually been charged, and not to any other offense he may have committed but with which he has not been charged. Ibar v. State, 938 So.2d 451, 470 (Fla.2006). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the earliest of the following points: formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 638 (Fla.1997). At the earliest, Owen's right to counsel in the Slattery murder attached when he was charged with that offense on June 22, 1984. As a result, his June 21, 1984, confession could not have been obtained in violation of such right. Third, Owen asserts that counsel was deficient for not arguing that Owen's confession should be suppressed because it was made during what Owen reasonably believed to be plea negotiations. Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1999), provided that [e]vidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible, except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter 837. This Court has explained that to determine whether a statement is made in connection with plea negotiations, a court should use a two-tiered analysis and determine, first, whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion, and, second, whether the accused's expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances. Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003) (quoting Stevens v. State, 419 So.2d 1058, 1062 (Fla.1982)). The trial court did not err in summarily denying this subclaim because again the asserted ground for suppression is without merit. Owen's testimony at the suppression hearing positively refutes his postconviction allegation that he had an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of his confession to the Slattery murder. Owen testified that while being questioned in May and June of 1984, he understood that only Assistant State Attorney Paul Moyle, not the questioning officers, had authority to determine the charges against him. Owen further testified that he had not spoken to Moyle and that to his knowledge Moyle had never offered him a plea agreement. Finally, Owen explained that the police officers never promised him that he would go to a hospital if he confessed, but rather, Owen was hoping that if he confessed, he would be sent to a hospital instead of prison. Counsel was not ineffective for not arguing this basis for suppression because Owen's own testimony refutes the claim that he had a reasonable, subjective belief that he was negotiating a plea at the time of his confession. [10]
The trial court did not err in summarily denying Owen's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not calling Dr. Barry Crown during the guilt phase to testify about Owen's neuropsychological impairment in support of Owen's insanity defense. Dr. Crown did testify during Owen's penalty phase. He testified that neurological testing indicated that Owen suffered from organic brain damage and that due to this damage, Owen likely would have difficulty understanding long-term consequences and controlling his impulsivity. Dr. Crown explained that impairment in reasoning and judgment caused by brain damage exacerbates the problems caused by mental illness. Owen does not allege that Dr. Crown's guilt-phase testimony would be different than that actually presented at the penalty phase. Thus, there is no factual dispute and no need for an evidentiary hearing. After reviewing Dr. Crown's penalty-phase testimony, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that Owen failed to show that counsel was deficient because Dr. Crown's testimony would not have been admissible during the guilt phase. We further agree that Owen has not demonstrated deficiency or prejudice because, even if admissible, Dr. Crown's testimony would actually be harmful to Owen's defense. In keeping with the requirements of the M'Naghten rule, [11] to be relevant to an insanity defense, expert testimony must concern whether the defendant (1) was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong (2) as a result of a mental infirmity, disease, or defect. Hall v. State, 568 So.2d 882, 885 (Fla.1990). Both aspects of the insanity defense must be addressed. Expert testimony that a defendant suffered from a mental infirmity, disease, or defect without concluding that as a result the defendant could not distinguish right from wrong is irrelevant. Id. (citing Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817 (Fla.1984); Kight v. State, 512 So.2d 922 (Fla.1987); Zamora v. State, 361 So.2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)). While Dr. Crown testified that Owen suffered from a recognized mental defect or infirmity, he did not conclude that as a result Owen could not distinguish right from wrong. Dr. Crown explicitly testified that he did not form an opinion about Owen's sanity. Thus, Dr. Crown's testimony would not have been admissible during the guilt phase. Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to present inadmissible evidence. Pietri v. State, 885 So.2d 245, 254 (Fla.2004). Moreover, competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Dr. Crown's testimony would not have been helpful to the defense. The helpful aspects of Dr. Crown's testimony were touched upon by Dr. Faye Sultan, a psychologist who testified on behalf of Owen during the guilt phase. Dr. Sultan testified that Owen suffered from frontal lobe damage, which impacted his decision-making ability and caused impulse control problems. The defense-friendly aspects of Dr. Crown's testimony would have been largely cumulative. See Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 378 (Fla.2007) ([T]rial counsel is not ineffective for failing to present cumulative evidence.). Furthermore, Dr. Crown's testimony was not entirely favorable for Owen. While Dr. Crown emphasized that he did not conduct the full psychological evaluation of Owen that was needed to evaluate sanity, he opined that Owen's brain damage would not have prevented Owen from planning a crime and would not have substantially impaired Owen's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
In addition to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Owen argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claims based on Brady and Giglio. Owen alleged that the State violated Brady by not disclosing notes that law enforcement officers seized from Linda Burkholder, a counselor at a mental health program that Owen attended in 1983, which documented Owen's delusional thinking and other mental infirmities. To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show (1) that favorable evidence, either exculpatory or impeaching, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). The State argued and the trial court held that Owen's Brady claim in the instant case was procedurally barred because this Court affirmed the summary denial of the identical claim on appeal from the denial of Owen's successive postconviction motion relating to his conviction for the murder of Georgianna Worden. See Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 187 (Fla.2003). While we do not agree with the trial court's reason for denying the instant Brady claim, we do find that Owen is not entitled to postconviction relief. Owen's allegations fail to state a legally sufficient claim of suppression, and the trial record refutes Owen's allegations that he was prejudiced because Burkholder's notes were material. As for the suppression prong, Owen's allegations, taken as true, do not establish that the notes were willfully or inadvertently suppressed. As explained in Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Fla.2000): Although the due diligence requirement is absent from the Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the Brady test, it continues to follow that a Brady claim cannot stand if a defendant knew of the evidence allegedly withheld or had possession of it, simply because the evidence cannot then be found to have been withheld from the defendant. Equally available evidence is not suppressed where the defendant was aware of the exculpatory information. Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 911 (Fla.2000). See also Tompkins v. State, 872 So.2d 230, 239 (Fla.2003) (finding no suppression where defense was given illegible copy of police report because defense became aware of report and could have requested legible copy). In the instant case, Owen alleged that the notes were in the possession of the State because the notes were taken by law enforcement officers from Linda Burkholder and that he obtained the information about the notes after the Slattery retrial. However, Owen's motion did not explain how he could have been unaware of his own therapist as a source of potentially exculpatory information until after his 1999 retrial, given his allegations that he discussed his mental illness with Burkholder prior to 1984 and that she took notes during their sessions. Owen did not allege that Burkholder or her notes were made unavailable to Owen by the State's actions. To the contrary, the record reveals that Owen's 1982 arrest in Michigan and the police reports concerning burglaries in Florida in 1982 were known by Owen's counsel and the defense experts in their work on the case; yet nowhere in the trial record is there any indication of a failed attempt to get testimony from Linda Burkholder or any request from the experts about wanting to know about Burkholder's treatment of Owen that went unfulfilled because the information was unavailable. Thus, Owen's conclusory allegations fail to satisfy the suppression prong. Even if we were to find Owen's allegations of suppression to be sufficient and not refuted by the record, Owen's claim that he was prejudiced by the alleged suppression of Burkholder's notes is refuted by the record. [T]he `ultimate test' in determining if a Brady violation occurred is whether `confidence in the outcome of the trial is undermined to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that had the information been disclosed to the defendant, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' Way, 760 So.2d at 912 (quoting Young v. State, 739 So.2d 553, 559 (Fla.1999)). This Court follows the Supreme Court's standard for determining materiality: [T]he materiality inquiry is not just a matter of determining whether, after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the jury's conclusions. Rather the question is whether the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Way, 760 So.2d at 913 (alteration in original) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995))). Owen argues that Burkholder's notes would have been relevant to both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial or would have been used as impeachment. He argues that the notes would have showed the jury that Mr. Owen's gender identity and other mental illness symptoms were manifest before Mr. Owen was facing the death penalty, thus refuting the State's charge of recent fabrication. Reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that Burkholder's notes would have been cumulative and thus not material. Owen called Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Faye Sultan, a psychologist, to testify about Owen's mental health during both the guilt and the penalty phases of his trial. Dr. Berlin testified that he examined records from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) home where Owen lived as a teenager and police reports from a 1982 burglary where Owen stole a woman's swimsuit. Dr. Berlin testified that he concluded that Owen was having problems with gender identity as a teenager and at the time of a burglary in 1982. Dr. Berlin testified that Owen had had false beliefs that he was a woman since early childhood. Dr. Sultan testified that she reviewed a very extensive set of documents from the VFW home, including some psychological reports that were done of him, one when he was in the seventh grade and one when he was in the tenth grade. Dr. Sultan testified that there was some indication Mr. Owen suffered some very seriousactually attempted a suicide when he lived in the VFW home and had to be hospitalized when he was about 17 or 18 in a mental hospital. The defense also called Lieutenant Marc Woods, who investigated Owen in relation to the 1982 burglaries and assisted law enforcement officers in 1984, to testify about Owen's mental state. On cross-examination, Lieutenant Woods agreed that the 1982 Florida charges were nolle prosequied because Owen could receive mental health treatment up there [in Michigan] as well as down here. This record indicates that the defense experts had documents from the VFW home, psychological evaluations done while Owen was living at the home, reports from the hospital where he was admitted after attempting suicide at age seventeen or eighteen, and the police reports from the 1982 burglaries, and that the experts testified that they had reviewed sufficient records to conclude that Owen's mental illness went back into his childhood, well before he faced the death penalty for the murder of Karen Slattery. Given the totality of the evidence, we find no basis upon which to conclude that Linda Burkholder's notes would have put the case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict or the sentence. Finally, the trial court did not err in summarily denying Owen's claim that the State violated Giglio and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), by purposely creating a false impression that the State's mental health experts were independent, court-appointed experts. First, the claim is procedurally barred because Owen could have challenged these on-the-record statements on direct appeal. See, e.g., Craig v. State, 685 So.2d 1224, 1226-27 (Fla.1996). Second, Owen's allegations do not state a claim under Giglio, which requires a defendant to allege that: (1) the prosecutor presented or failed to correct false testimony; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) the false evidence was material. Guzman v. State, 941 So.2d 1045, 1050 (Fla.2006). The prosecutor did not present or fail to correct false testimony. Dr. Thomas Waddell and Dr. McKinley Cheshire, who testified as mental health experts during the guilt and penalty phases, and Dr. Martin Tracey, who testified as a population genetics expert during the guilt phase, were appointed by the trial court at the request of the State.