Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the summary denial of Martin Edward Grossman's third successive motion for postconviction relief following the issuance of a death warrant. The court held that his claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, clemency proceedings, and competency to be executed were procedurally barred, untimely, or without merit based on the record and controlling precedent. The opinion addresses Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and the court's jurisdiction over appeals involving postconviction relief from death sentences.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Grossman's claim that the original postconviction court improperly denied his ineffective-assistance claim concerning mental-health evidence was procedurally barred and untimely.
- Whether proposed expert testimony and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. McCollum constituted newly discovered evidence supporting successive postconviction relief.
- Whether Grossman's renewed Giglio claim concerning witness Charles Brewer warranted relief or was distinguishable from the newly supported claim in Johnson v. State.
- Whether Florida's clemency procedures required an additional clemency proceeding before execution.
- Whether Grossman's claim that he might be incompetent at the time of execution was premature and filed in the wrong court.
Holdings
- A successive postconviction claim that merely attempts to resurrect an ineffective-assistance claim previously litigated and rejected is procedurally barred.
- The proposed testimony of a new mental-health expert and the Porter decision did not constitute newly discovered evidence excusing the untimely successive motion.
- Summary denial of Grossman's renewed Giglio claim was proper because the claim was successive and was unsupported by new evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
- Florida law does not require an additional clemency proceeding before execution, and courts may not second-guess the executive branch's clemency decisions in capital cases.
- A claim of incompetency to be executed is premature until the Governor conducts the proceedings required by Florida law, and the claim must be filed in the circuit court where the execution is to take place.
Key quotations
“A postconviction court's decision regarding whether to grant a rule 3.851 evidentiary hearing depends on the written materials before the court; therefore, for all intents and purposes, its ruling constitutes a pure question of law and is subject to de novo review.” (29 So. 3d at 1042)
“We again conclude that no specific procedures are mandated in the clemency process and that Johnston has been provided with the clemency proceedings to which he is entitled.” (29 So. 3d at 1044)
“Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of this claim.” (29 So. 3d at 1045)
Factual background
Grossman was convicted of murdering Wildlife Officer Margaret Park in 1984 and received a unanimous jury recommendation for death. His original postconviction proceedings included claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain mental-health evidence and mitigation, and claims concerning alleged false testimony by jailhouse witness Charles Brewer; those claims were denied and affirmed. Following a 2010 death warrant, Grossman filed a third successive motion relying on previously presented mental-health material, alleged Giglio violations, a challenge to the clemency process, and alleged incompetency to be executed.
Procedural history
Grossman was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1985. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his original state and federal postconviction proceedings were unsuccessful. After the Governor signed a new death warrant in January 2010, Grossman filed a third successive Rule 3.851 motion; the trial court summarily denied two claims and dismissed a competency-to-be-executed claim. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed.