Summary
The Florida Supreme Court denied Robert Brian Waterhouse’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rejecting four claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court held that challenges concerning juror excusal, juror exposure to an unofficial pamphlet, admission of evidence regarding sexual proclivities, and denial of a continuance were either meritless, procedurally barred, or previously resolved. The opinion concludes that Waterhouse was not entitled to relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Waterhouse's ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred because they had been raised in a prior proceeding.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court's removal of jurors Ashcraft and Clark for cause.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the jury's exposure to an unofficial jury-service pamphlet.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the admission of evidence concerning Waterhouse's sexual proclivities.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of a continuance following the State's late disclosure of witnesses.
Holdings
- The claims were not procedurally barred because the court's earlier statement that the appellate-counsel claims were moot after habeas relief did not address their substance.
- Waterhouse was not entitled to relief because the trial court properly excused both jurors for cause, and appellate counsel could not be ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim.
- Waterhouse was not entitled to relief because the pamphlet claim was not preserved, the record showed corrective instructions, and the pamphlet did not constitute fundamental error.
- The claim was not cognizable as an ineffective-assistance claim in this proceeding because the substance of the evidentiary issue had already been raised and decided adversely on direct appeal.
- Waterhouse was not entitled to relief because he failed to show prejudice from the late disclosure or the denial of a continuance.
Key quotations
“Fundamental error “reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.”” (at 483)
Factual background
Waterhouse was convicted of the 1980 first-degree murder of Deborah Kammerer and remained under a sentence of death after resentencing. During the original trial, jurors Ashcraft and Clark made statements indicating difficulty imposing the death penalty or fairly evaluating circumstantial evidence, and the trial court excused them for cause. The jury also viewed a pamphlet containing general advice about jury service, the State disclosed potentially exculpatory witnesses shortly before trial, and the trial court denied a continuance. Waterhouse argued that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these matters.
Procedural history
Waterhouse was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal, later granted habeas relief and vacated the original death sentence because the jury had not considered nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and affirmed the death sentence imposed after resentencing. The circuit court summarily denied Waterhouse's first Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, and the Supreme Court affirmed that denial. Waterhouse then filed this habeas petition, which the court denied.