Duckett v. State; Duckett v. Crosby, Jr.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed James Aren Duckett’s appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 post-conviction motion and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejected claims involving recanted testimony, physical evidence, Brady disclosure obligations, ineffective assistance of counsel, penalty-phase proceedings, and related constitutional issues. The court affirmed the post-conviction order and denied habeas relief.

Holdings

1. Recanted testimony warrants a new trial only when the change in testimony is likely to produce a different verdict; because the witness would not testify at a new trial and substantial circumstantial evidence independently supported the verdict, Duckett was not entitled to a new trial.
2. Duckett failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland.
3. Duckett failed to establish a Brady violation because he did not show that the claimed evidence was favorable, suppressed by the State, and prejudicial; a report concerning the State's expert did not exist until after Duckett's trial and direct appeal.
4. The circuit court properly limited DNA testing to clothing because the Supreme Court's relinquishment order was narrowly drafted and did not authorize testing of additional non-clothing items.
5. Duckett's habeas claim that his death sentence violated Ring v. Arizona and Apprendi v. New Jersey was without merit because Ring did not apply retroactively to his case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether recanted testimony by a prosecution witness warranted a new trial.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or present evidence concerning the prosecution witness, physical evidence, consolidation of the charges, additional penalty-phase witnesses, or psychological testing.
3. Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland and Kyles v. Whitley by failing to disclose allegedly favorable or impeaching evidence.
4. Whether the circuit court properly limited DNA testing to clothing identified in the Supreme Court's relinquishment order.
5. Whether Duckett could assert new Brady and Kyles claims during the limited relinquishment proceeding.
6. Whether Duckett was entitled to habeas relief based on actual innocence, alleged deficiencies in direct appellate review, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, or Ring and Apprendi.

Disposition

affirmed