Opinion ID: 799903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Trial State Court Proceedings

Text: Pope filed a direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in allowing Lagle's videotaped deposition to be presented to the jury. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Pope, 441 So.2d at 1074. Pope's collateral attack began when he filed in state court a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming the ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion raised twelve errors by trial counsel, including the five guilt-phase ineffectiveness claims before us in this appeal, as well as two penalty-phase ineffectiveness claims: (1) counsel's failure to object to improper comments made by the court and the prosecutor; and (2) counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence drawn from Pope's background. The trial court held that except for two of his claims, Pope's allegations were either insufficient to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), or were specifically refuted by the record. As for the two remaining claims, the court rejected the first oneconcerning ineffective assistance stemming from the introduction of Lagle's videotaped depositionbecause it found, after conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue, that Lagle was indeed unavailable for trial. An evidentiary hearing was set on the second of Pope's remaining claimsthat his trial counsel was ineffective for using the Vietnam Syndrome Defense against Pope's wishes. After the evidentiary hearing, the court denied this claim too, finding that Pope knew, understood, and concurred in his trial counsel's opinion that Dr. William Weitz's testimony regarding the Vietnam Syndrome Defense should be used during the guilt phase of the trial. On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Pope argued that the trial court improperly failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on several claims raised in his motion for new trial, including the remaining guilt-phase ineffectiveness claims, as well as the penalty-phase ineffectiveness claims listed above. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Pope's Rule 3.850 motion. Pope v. State, 569 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 1990) (per curiam). During the pendency of the Rule 3.850 motion, Pope filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court alleging ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied Pope's petition. Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla. 1986). Of particular relevance for our purposes, the court agreed with Pope's claim that the prosecutor had made clearly improper comments during closing argument of the penalty phase, the most bothersome being the comment on the petitioner's preference for death. Id. at 803. Nonetheless, the court held that in light of the aggravating evidence presented ... none [of the comments] are so egregious as to fundamentally undermine the reliability of the jury's recommendation. Id. Following his initial state Rule 3.850 motion and petition for writ of habeas corpus, Pope filed in state court several other Rule 3.850 motions, several petitions for writ of habeas corpus, and miscellaneous motions attempting to raise new claims, and to cure procedurally defaulted claims and exhaust claims that the federal court subsequently deemed unexhausted. All of these filings were denied in turn. See, e.g., Pope v. State, 702 So.2d 221 (Fla. 1997) (per curiam), reh'g denied (Fla. 1998).