Herring v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Ted Herring's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. The court held that most claims were procedurally improper because they were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal, rejected Herring's proportionality and ineffective-assistance claims, and upheld the capital sentencing statute against his constitutional challenge.

Holdings

1. A Rule 3.850 motion may not be used as a second appeal to consider issues that were raised or could have been raised on the initial direct appeal.
2. Herring's claim that his death sentence was disproportionate and that Caruthers required a life sentence was without merit.
3. Herring was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his ineffective-assistance claims did not satisfy the governing Strickland and Knight standards.
4. Herring's claim that Florida's capital sentencing statute was discriminatorily applied was rejected.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal may be relitigated in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion.
2. Whether Herring's death sentence was disproportionate under Caruthers v. State.
3. Whether Herring was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
4. Whether Florida's capital sentencing statute was discriminatorily applied.

Disposition

affirmed