Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Chadwick Willacy’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 rejected claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, juror eligibility, mitigation investigation, recusal, and denial of evidentiary hearings. It also addressed Willacy’s request for postconviction DNA testing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court improperly denied evidentiary hearings on claims concerning appointment of independent counsel, juror eligibility, and the failure to swear the jury before voir dire.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an independent-act defense.
- Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to recuse the resentencing judge.
- Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present statutory and nonstatutory mitigating evidence.
- Whether Willacy was entitled to postconviction DNA testing under Florida law.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge probable cause for Willacy's arrest and the search of his home.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator instruction.
- Whether Willacy was entitled to habeas relief based on juror eligibility, Ring, lethal injection, or possible incompetency at execution.
Holdings
- No evidentiary hearing was required because the challenged claims were legally insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record, or based on a rule that did not require the asserted procedure.
- Counsel was not ineffective for declining to assert the independent-act defense.
- The claim was procedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal after resentencing, and ineffective assistance could not be used to circumvent that bar.
- Counsel was not ineffective because the investigation and strategic decision to present positive, humanizing evidence rather than potentially harmful mental-health and abuse evidence were reasonable, and no prejudice was shown.
- Willacy was not entitled to DNA testing because he failed to explain how testing each item would create a reasonable probability of acquittal or a lesser sentence.
- Appellate counsel was not ineffective because the probable-cause claims lacked merit.
- Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the CCP-instruction claim because the issue was not preserved.
- Habeas relief was unwarranted because the juror, Ring, lethal-injection, and execution-competency claims were meritless, procedurally barred, or not ripe.
Key quotations
“To uphold the trial court's summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” (138)
“The clear requirement of these provisions is that a movant, in pleading the requirements of rule 3.853, must lay out with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal or a lesser sentence.” (145)
Factual background
Willacy, the victim's next-door neighbor, was found to have burglarized Marlys Sather's home, assaulted and bound her, taken her property and vehicle, and set her on fire. Investigators found Willacy's fingerprints on items at the crime scene, discovered Sather's property and blood-stained clothing in Willacy's home, and located Sather's check register there. Willacy was convicted of murder, burglary, robbery, and arson and received a death sentence after resentencing.
Procedural history
Willacy was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, burglary, robbery, and arson and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the convictions, vacated the original death sentence, and remanded for a new penalty phase; it later affirmed the resentencing. Willacy filed a Rule 3.850 motion raising thirty-one claims. After summary denial of seventeen claims and an evidentiary hearing on fourteen others, the circuit court denied relief, leading to this appeal and habeas petition.