Opinion ID: 1776892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective Assistance at Guilt Phase Trial

Text: Freeman alleges defense counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the State's decision to pursue the death penalty was based upon improper racial considerations. He claims the prosecutor rejected Freeman's offer to plead guilty in the Epps and Collier cases in exchange for two consecutive life sentences because the State needed to seek the death penalty in more cases where Caucasian defendants killed African-American victims. Although the decision to seek the death penalty is within the prosecutor's discretion, that discretion may be curbed by the judiciary where motives such as bad faith, race, religion, or a desire to prevent the defendant from exercising his constitutional rights contributes to the prosecutor's decision. See State v. Bloom, 497 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla.1986). Freeman claims that race was the motive behind the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty in this case. At the evidentiary hearing, Freeman presented the testimony of then Assistant State Attorney John Bradford Stetson, Jr., State Attorney Ed Austin, Assistant Public Defender Ann Finnell (who was Freeman's co-counsel at the Epps trial), and Assistant Public Defender Patrick McGuinness (Freeman's trial counsel for both the Collier and Epps murders). The testimony showed that prior to trial, Freeman's trial counsel approached the prosecutor with an offer to plead guilty to both the Epps and Collier murders in exchange for two consecutive life sentences with twenty-five-year mandatory minimum terms. The testimony showed that both parties were aware of the then pending federal case, McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987). McCleskey involved an allegation that prosecutors were seeking the death penalty disproportionally against African-American defendants. Freeman alleges that when his trial counsel presented the plea offer to the prosecutor, the prosecutor refused the offer for fear that defense attorneys in other cases would argue that he was favoring Caucasian defendants. Freeman argues that the State relied on race in making its decision, that the reliance created a reverse- McCleskey claim, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the claim because he admittedly did not know how to do so. The trial court found that, although the prosecutor's response to defense counsel's plea offer was a somewhat ill-considered retort, the evidence demonstrated that the State did not pursue the death penalty based on Freeman's race. The evidence the trial court relied upon included the testimony of Ed Austin, the State Attorney at the time of trial. Austin stated that his office never prosecuted a defendant based on his or her race. Austin also stated that although he had no recollection of Freeman's case, at the time of Freeman's trial it was standard policy for him to discuss the case with the prosecutor and determine the elements of the crime, the aggravation and mitigation, and whether the State should go forward and seek the death penalty. Austin commented on the ongoing accusations that his office too often sought the death penalty in cases where the victims were Caucasian and the defendants were African-American. He stated there were a lot of newspaper articles criticizing the State Attorney's Office, but those accusations had nothing to do with the decision to file and prosecute a homicide as a first-degree murder case. The decision to seek the death penalty, Austin stated, was made on the basis of the facts of the case. When Austin was asked about the public's perception of the State Attorney's Office, he stated that perceptions have nothing to do with how a case is prosecuted, or the decision to seek the death penalty, or whether there is aggravation that outweighs mitigation. Austin stated that the only time race is considered in the prosecution is if race is an element of the crime, and that during his tenure as a State Attorney, his office never filed a case for the wrong reasons. The cases were filed based on the law. Prosecutor Stetson also testified at the evidentiary hearing. He stated that under the facts of this case, irrespective of race, the aggravating circumstances clearly supported the decision to seek the death penalty. For ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in postconviction proceedings, the appellate court affords deference to findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence and independently reviews deficiency and prejudice as mixed questions of law and fact. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1033-34 (Fla.2000) (setting forth standard of appellate review following an evidentiary hearing on motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims); see also State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342 (Fla.2000); Cherry v. State, 781 So.2d 1040, 1048 (Fla.2000) ([W]e review the prongs of ... ineffective assistance of counsel as questions of mixed law and fact.). Therefore, we give deference to the findings of fact regarding the conversations between the prosecutor and defense counsel, the conversations between the prosecutor and the State Attorney, and the testimony as to how and why the State chose to seek the death penalty in this case. The trial court's finding that the State did not prosecute Freeman because of his race is based on competent, substantial evidence in the record. Next, we review whether these findings constitute a deficiency in performance that prejudiced Freeman. This Court reviews de novo the issue of whether defense counsel was deficient at trial and, if so, whether the defendant was prejudiced. See Stephens, 748 So.2d at 1033-34. Freeman argues that defense counsel was ineffective because he admittedly did not know what legal mechanism to employ to address the issue of the prosecutor's perceived reliance on race as a factor in the decision to seek the death penalty. As stated in Stewart v. State, 801 So.2d 59, 64-65 (Fla.2001), for a defendant to succeed in his ineffectiveness claims, he must satisfy two elements: first, he must show that counsel's performance was deficient; and second, he must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. In order to prove these elements, a defendant must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial where the result is reliable. Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). [W]hen a defendant fails to make a showing as to one prong, it is not necessary to delve into whether he has made a showing as to the other prong. Stewart, 801 So.2d at 65; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ([T]here is no reason for a court deciding an effective assistance claim... to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.); Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 518 n. 19 (Fla.1999) (finding no need to address prejudice prong where defendant failed to establish deficient performance prong). Even if we assume defense counsel was deficient in his inability to address this issue at the time of trial, Freeman has failed to establish that the State relied on race when it decided to seek the death penalty, and thus has not demonstrated prejudice. The testimony establishes only that the prosecutor was aware of the McCleskey issue and perceptions and accusations made about his office. State Attorney Austin confirmed that race was not a factor in deciding to seek the death penalty in Freeman's case. The trial court accepted this testimony as true, and there is nothing in the record to refute it. The trial court's finding that the prosecutor did not rely on this defendant's race in seeking the death penalty is supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's denial of relief on this claim.