Leonardo Franqui v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Leonardo Franqui's motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court rejected claims concerning mental retardation and the Eighth Amendment, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial comments, penalty-phase evidence, and recanted testimony. The court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the finding that Franqui did not meet Florida's statutory test for mental retardation and concluded that the remaining claims did not warrant relief.

Holdings

1. Florida's statutory and judicial requirement of an IQ score of 70 or below for the first prong of the mental-retardation test does not violate Atkins or the Eighth Amendment. Atkins left the states to develop appropriate procedures and definitions for enforcing the constitutional restriction on executing mentally retarded persons.
2. The circuit court properly denied Franqui's ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel's failure to object to prosecutorial comments because, even assuming deficient performance as to some comments, Franqui failed to establish Strickland prejudice.
3. The circuit court properly summarily denied the ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to call Dr. Fisher during the penalty phase.
4. The circuit court properly denied the ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to call Gonzalez at the suppression hearing or at trial.
5. Franqui failed to establish a Brady violation because the record did not show that the State suppressed favorable evidence and the alleged timing discrepancy in Abreu's testimony was not material.
6. Franqui failed to establish a Giglio violation because he did not prove that Abreu's penalty-phase testimony was false, that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony, or that any inconsistency was material.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Florida's strict IQ cutoff of 70 or below for the intellectual-functioning prong of mental retardation is consistent with Atkins v. Virginia and the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether the circuit court improperly summarily denied Franqui's ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to object to prosecutorial comments.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present Dr. Brad Fisher's penalty-phase testimony.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present Vivian Gonzalez's testimony at the suppression hearing or at the guilt and penalty phases.
5. Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland by suppressing favorable evidence concerning Pablo Abreu's testimony.
6. Whether the State violated Giglio v. United States by knowingly presenting false or material testimony from Abreu.
7. Whether Franqui was entitled to postconviction relief under Rule 3.850.

Disposition

affirmed