Kimbrough v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Darius Mark Kimbrough’s motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court addressed claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain and present mental-health mitigation and expert assistance under Ake v. Oklahoma. It concluded that the record supported the circuit court’s rulings.

Holdings

1. Counsel's strategic decision not to call Dr. Mings or Dr. Berland during the penalty phase, after weighing potentially helpful mitigation against the risk of damaging testimony and cross-examination, was a reasonable trial tactic and did not constitute deficient performance.
2. Kimbrough failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice based on the alleged failure to provide Mings and Berland with sufficient background information.
3. Kimbrough failed to prove ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to present the additional statutory and nonstatutory mitigators identified by Dr. Mosman.
4. The circuit court properly summarily denied claims two, four, six, seven, and eighteen because the allegations were conclusory, procedurally barred, conclusively refuted by the record, or failed to allege facts demonstrating deficient performance and prejudice.
5. The court rejected Kimbrough's claim that Florida's death-penalty scheme was unconstitutional under Apprendi and Ring, relying on its prior decisions declining to find the scheme unconstitutional and noting that the prior-violent-felony aggravator independently satisfied constitutional requirements.
6. Kimbrough's claim that he might be incompetent to be executed was not ripe because Florida law did not permit the issue to be raised until the Governor issued a death warrant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call mental-health experts during the penalty phase under Ake v. Oklahoma.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to provide mental-health experts with sufficient background material.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present available statutory and nonstatutory mitigating evidence.
4. Whether the circuit court properly summarily denied claims alleging ineffective assistance concerning the examination of a State expert's credentials, rehabilitation of a prospective juror, investigation of a juror's connection to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and failure to seek a mistrial after improper prosecutorial closing argument.
5. Whether Florida's capital-sentencing scheme was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona.
6. Whether Kimbrough's claim that he might be incompetent to be executed was ripe for review.

Disposition

affirmed