Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Robert Consalvo's motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court upheld the trial court's findings that recanted testimony from witnesses was not credible and rejected Consalvo's claims based on newly discovered evidence, Brady, and Giglio violations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by rejecting the recanted testimony of Mark DaCosta and William Palmer as not credible and denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- Whether the alleged recanted testimony warranted a new penalty-phase proceeding concerning the avoid-arrest aggravating circumstance.
- Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose alleged exculpatory information concerning the witnesses' preparation.
- Whether the State violated Giglio v. United States by presenting misleading testimony from DaCosta and Palmer.
- Whether the circuit court erred in summarily denying the remaining postconviction claims.
Holdings
- A new trial based on a prosecution witness's recantation is warranted only when, after considering all the circumstances, the changed testimony would probably produce a different verdict; the circuit court may reject the recantation when it is not credible.
- Because the circuit court properly rejected the recanted testimony as not credible and the newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the Jones standard, it did not warrant a new penalty-phase proceeding concerning the avoid-arrest aggravator.
- The Brady claim failed because the circuit court found no credible evidence that the State had briefed DaCosta or Palmer about the investigation and therefore no exculpatory evidence existed that the State was required to disclose on the asserted theory.
- The Giglio claim failed because the circuit court properly found that no misleading testimony had been shown.
- The circuit court did not err in summarily denying claims V through XV because the claims were insufficiently pleaded, procedurally barred, previously resolved on direct appeal, or meritless on their face.
Key quotations
“Only when it appears that, on a new trial, the witness's testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict will a new trial be granted.” (562)
“There is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's resolution of this matter” (563)
Factual background
Consalvo was convicted of murdering Lorraine Pezza during a burglary and was sentenced to death. The prosecution's evidence included possession of the victim's checkbooks, Consalvo's statement that police would not pin the stabbing on him before police disclosed that Pezza had been stabbed, a bloody towel matching the victim's blood, and testimony from jail inmate William Palmer. In postconviction proceedings, Palmer and Mark DaCosta recanted or disavowed portions of their prior accounts, but the circuit court found their recantations not credible and credited the testimony of Assistant State Attorney Brian Cavanagh that he had not improperly briefed or promised benefits to the witnesses.
Procedural history
Consalvo was convicted of armed burglary and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on direct appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. The circuit court granted an evidentiary hearing on four claims concerning recanted testimony and alleged Brady and Giglio violations, summarily denied the remaining claims, and ultimately denied the amended postconviction motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed.