Matthew Marshall v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed Matthew Marshall’s appeal from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court held that Marshall was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegations of juror misconduct involving racial remarks and extrinsic materials, while affirming the denial of relief on the other issues addressed, including ineffective assistance of counsel and claims concerning withheld exculpatory information.

Holdings

1. A postconviction movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when sworn allegations, including a third-party affidavit, assert potentially prejudicial overt juror acts such as racial remarks or receipt of prejudicial non-record information that do not inhere in the verdict. The trial court erred by summarily denying Marshall's juror-misconduct claim.
2. Marshall failed to establish deficient performance because counsel conducted a substantial pretrial investigation and Marshall, his father, and available records did not disclose the alleged childhood abuse. The denial of this ineffective-assistance claim was affirmed.
3. The direct Ake competency-of-expert claim was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal, and counsel was not ineffective merely because the trial court denied counsel's request for an additional mental-health expert.
4. Marshall failed to establish a Brady violation based on the alleged promise to house inmate witnesses together because, even assuming the State withheld evidence of such a promise, the evidence was not sufficiently material to undermine confidence in the verdict.
5. Marshall failed to establish a Giglio violation because he did not show material false testimony knowingly presented by the State, and there was no reasonable likelihood that the alleged undisclosed promise affected the verdict.
6. The cumulative-error claim was moot because the court rejected all asserted errors except the juror-misconduct claim, which was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
7. Claims presented without developed appellate argument were deemed insufficiently presented, while the specifically argued claims were procedurally barred or not ripe for review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Marshall was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on allegations that jurors made racial remarks and considered non-record materials.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence concerning Marshall's family background and alleged childhood abuse.
3. Whether Marshall established a Brady violation based on alleged nondisclosure of a promise to house inmate witnesses together.
4. Whether the State violated Giglio by presenting or permitting false testimony concerning promises made to a witness.
5. Whether cumulative error required relief.
6. Whether the trial court improperly summarily denied additional postconviction claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded