Counsel's failure to develop mitigating evidence did not violate the Sixth Amendment; no prejudice was shown, as aggravating circumstances were too strong." [via LexisOne]Steven Richard Taylor v. State, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 337 (FL 2/10/2011) "On defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to further amend where the arguments asserted in defendant's closing memorandum were merely refinements and expansions upon arguments that had already been raised in his amended motion for postconviction relief." [via LexisOne]This edition was compiled & edited by Karl Keys, Esq.

Counsel's failure to develop mitigating evidence did not violate the Sixth Amendment; no prejudice was shown, as aggravating circumstances were too strong." [via LexisOne]Steven Richard Taylor v. State, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 337 (FL 2/10/2011) "On defendant's Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to further amend where the arguments asserted in defendant's closing memorandum were merely refinements and expansions upon arguments that had already been raised in his amended motion for postconviction relief." [via LexisOne]Week of January 31, 2011: In Favor of the Accused or CondemnedFrederick Bell v. State, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 85 (Miss 2/3/2011) (dissent) Leave granted to file a successive postconviction petition on the issue of mental retardation, all other claims denied outright.Jerry Jerome Smith v. State, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 7 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/4/2011) On remand from the Alabama Supreme Court ordering a new penalty phase hearing.Week of January 31, 2011: In Favor of the Prosecution or WardenJerry Devane Bryant v. State, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/4/2011) “For the reasons stated above, we remand this case to the circuit court for it to afford Bryant th

Duane E Owen v. Sec. Dep't of Corr.,2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10484 (11th Cir 5/18/2009) "Denial of death-row prisoner's petition for habeas relief was affirmed; five of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims were procedurally barred because prisoner refused to proceed in good faith at his Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 evidentiary hearing; his remaining claims--those that were not procedurally defaulted--lacked merit." [via LexisOne] TheDefense Newsletter Bloghas more.Anthony Lamarca v. Sec.

(Initial List)Week ofMay 18, 2009– In Favor of the State or GovernmentDuane E Owen v. Sec. Dep't of Corr.,2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10484 (11th Cir 5/18/2009) "Denial of death-row prisoner's petition for habeas relief was affirmed; five of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims were procedurally barred because prisoner refused to proceed in good faith at his Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 evidentiary hearing; his remaining claims--those that were not procedurally defaulted--lacked merit." [via LexisOne] TheDefense Newletter Bloghas more.Anthony Lamarca v. Sec.

[via Lexisone]Perry Alexander Taylor v. State, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 132 (FL 1/29/2009) (on rehearing) "As there was no material new evidence presented, the State was not shown to have withheld evidence, and trial counsel was not found to have failed to object to abuses by the State, each of a prisoner's claims of newly discovered evidence was sufficiently refuted. Thus, he was not entitled to postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850." [via Lexisone]Jason L. Wheeler v. State, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 137 (FL 1/29/2009) "Judgment was affirmed as there was sufficient evidence of first-degree murder of deputy one as defendant had to pump shotgun each time to chamber round of ammunition, and defendant pursued deputies and engaged in several separate gun battles with them, even after seeking refuge in woods and coming back to fire his gun."

VIII." [via LexisOne]Stephen Smith v. State, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1639 (FL 9/25/2008) "Defendant sentenced to death for first-degree murder did not show he was entitled to have addressed on direct appeal any of his five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims were usually presented in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 postconviction motion and he did not show rare exception that ineffectiveness was apparent on face of record." [via LexisOne]Kenneth Allen v. State, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2103 (Ind 9/24/2008) Relief on interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of the suppression of certain physical evidence affirmed.

Nixon I, 572 So.2d, at 1340.In a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (1999), Nixon renewed his Cronic-based "presumption of prejudice" ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. [FN4] After the trial court rejected the claim, State v. Nixon, Case No. 84-2324 (Cir.Ct., Oct. 22, 1997), App. 389-390, the Florida Supreme Court remanded for a further hearing on Nixon's consent to defense counsel's strategy.

"[T]he trial court shall also (1) consider the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a mitigating circumstance as required byEx parte Carroll,reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and, if necessary, resentenceMorrow; (2) amend its sentencing order to reflect its consideration of the jury's recommendation as a mitigating circumstance and to reflect the specific reasons it gave the jury's recommendation the consideration it did in light of the Alabama Supreme Court's opinions inEx parte CarrollandEx parte Taylor;and (3) amend its sentencing order to identify the specific nonstatutory mitigating circumstances it found to exist."Dilbeck v. Crosby, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 1366; 2004 WL 1899964 (FL 8/26/2004) Remand to the circuit court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).CAPITAL CASES (Unfavorable Disposition)Hackett v. Price,2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18146; 2004 WL 1903260 (3rd Cir 8/26/2004) Relief denied as "there is no reasonable likelihood the jury in Hackett's case applied the challenged instruction and verdict form in a way that prevented the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. . . .

He even indicated he had seen the person and the car a few days later; he followed the car to the Hidden Hills neighborhood, recorded the tag number, and [*49] called the police with a further description and indicated he could positively identify the driver of the vehicle. However, at trial Seiler's description of the individual was more tentative, and he could not remember how he arrived at the description he gave the police.Swafford's initial motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 contained a number of allegations that the State violated the principles espoused in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), by withholding exculpatory or impeaching evidence from the defense. At the first 3.

Relief denied on claims relating to the failure to turnover potentially exculpatory information & whether counsel was ineffective for failure to adequately develop the possibility that the condemned's confession was involuntarily due to drug and alcohol usage.Gorby v. Florida, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 636 (FL 4/11/2002) Relief denied on claims relating to (1) failure to investigate the prosecution's case-in-chief and to present, mitigation evidence regarding Gorby's mental health, alcohol abuse, and troubled upbringing in the penalty phase; (2) "was denied the right to a full and fair evidentiary hearing because (a) during postconviction proceedings the State refused to grant immunity from prosecution for perjury to inmate Jerry Wyche, who testified against Gorby at his trial; (b) the understaffing of the Office of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel and the operation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 hindered Gorby's ability to present an effective postconviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850; and (d) public records regarding not only the medical examiner's possible involvement in the death of his wife but also possible juror misconduct during Gorby's trial were withheld by various state agencies;" and (3) "denied competent assistance from a mental health expert to which he is entitled under Ake v. Oklahoma."OTHER NOTABLE CASESFischer v. United States, No. 98-1803 (7th Cir 04/04/2002) Failure to challenge the lack of jury unanimity on his conviction under 21 U.S.C. section 848 in his habeas petition before the district court, he could not raise the claim on appeal; denial of defendant's habeas petition affirmed.Higgs v.Carver, No. 01-1559 (7th Cir 04/01/2002) Remand ordered as record as to why a prisoner was placed in solitary confinement for 34 days is not sufficiently developedButera v. Cottey, No. 01-2242 (7th Cir 04/04/2002) Relief denied on prisoner rape suit as prisoner-plaintiff failed to show that sheriff had actual notice of a substantial risk of harm to him, that