Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed Richard M. Cooper's appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejected claims involving a jailhouse informant, alleged Brady and Giglio violations, conflicts of interest, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, penalty-phase evidence, and sentencing issues. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment and denied habeas relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether testimony from jailhouse informant Paul Skalnik violated Cooper's Sixth Amendment right to counsel because Skalnik allegedly acted as a state agent.
- Whether the State violated Giglio by presenting false testimony from Skalnik.
- Whether the State violated Brady by withholding evidence that Skalnik received benefits for testifying.
- Whether the State failed to comply with Cooper's public-records requests under chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
- Whether Cooper's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because of actual conflicts of interest.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present additional mitigating and mental-health evidence.
- Whether the circuit court properly summarily denied certain Rule 3.850 claims.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of a sentencing continuance.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the admission of lack-of-remorse evidence.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge prosecutorial comments concerning mitigating evidence.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the timing and substance of the written sentencing order.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the penalty-phase jury instructions, including instructions concerning aggravating circumstances, jury voting, burden shifting, and the advisory role of the jury.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge admission of an audiotape of a 911 call as improper victim-impact evidence.
- Whether the length of Cooper's confinement on death row constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
- Whether Florida's capital sentencing scheme violated Ring v. Arizona and Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Holdings
- A Sixth Amendment violation based on a jailhouse informant acting as a state agent requires proof of a preexisting plan between the informant and authorities to obtain the defendant's confession; the record did not establish such a plan here.
- Cooper failed to establish a Giglio violation because the challenged testimony, considered in the context of the preceding questioning, was neither false nor misleading.
- Cooper's Brady claim failed because the record contained no evidence, beyond speculation, that Skalnik received anything of value from the State in exchange for his testimony.
- The circuit court did not err in denying relief concerning Cooper's chapter 119 public-records requests because the State identified statutory exemptions and submitted the records for in-camera review.
- A defendant alleging ineffective assistance based on a conflict of interest must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel's performance; speculative or hypothetical conflicts are insufficient.
- Counsel's strategic decisions regarding the extent and type of penalty-phase mitigation evidence did not constitute deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
- Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that would have been meritless on direct appeal, and Cooper failed to show that the asserted omissions undermined confidence in the appellate result.
- Cooper was not entitled to postconviction or habeas relief on his claim that Florida's capital sentencing scheme violated Ring v. Arizona and Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Key quotations
“If a legal issue would in all probability have been found to be without merit had counsel raised the issue on direct appeal, failure of appellate counsel to raise the meritless issue will not render appellate counsel's performance ineffective.” (at 978)
“fundamental error "is defined as the type of error which 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 979)
Factual background
Cooper was convicted of murdering three men during a nighttime residential robbery in Pinellas County in 1982. Cooper and two accomplices concealed their identities, bound the victims, and shot them after one victim recognized an assailant. The sentencing court found multiple aggravating circumstances and no mitigating factors, and Cooper remained under a sentence of death.
Procedural history
Cooper was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed on direct appeal. The circuit court denied Cooper's Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, including claims concerning a jailhouse informant, public-records requests, conflicts of interest, mitigation evidence, and other alleged errors. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the circuit court's order and denied the habeas petition.