Winkles v. State

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of James Delano Winkles's motion for postconviction relief from his convictions and death sentences for two first-degree murders. The court rejected his claims that trial counsel was ineffective in advising him to plead guilty and waive a penalty-phase jury, declining to present mental-health evidence, and failing to call his uncle as a witness. The court concluded that counsel's decisions were reasonable strategic choices and that Winkles failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.

Holdings

1. Winkles failed to establish prejudice because he neither pleaded nor testified that, but for counsel's advice concerning Ring, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on a trial.
2. Counsel was not ineffective for advising Winkles to waive the penalty-phase jury, and Winkles failed to establish prejudice from the waiver.
3. Trial counsel was not ineffective for declining to present a mental-health expert or related sexual-abuse evidence after consulting experts, and Winkles failed to establish prejudice.
4. Winkles failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to locate and call J.C. Winkles because J.C.'s testimony did not establish prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Winkles to plead guilty and waive a penalty-phase jury based on the anticipated effect of Ring v. Arizona.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a mental-health expert and evidence concerning Winkles's alleged history of sexual abuse during the penalty phase.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to locate and call Winkles's uncle, J.C. Winkles, as a penalty-phase witness.

Disposition

affirmed