McCoy v. State

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviews Richard McCoy’s appeal from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. McCoy alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and related constitutional and evidentiary errors arising from his conviction and death sentence for the first-degree murder of Shervie Ann Elliott. The opinion applies the Strickland standard and addresses claims concerning alibi witnesses, impeachment, trial evidence, and counsel’s investigation and presentation of the defense.

Holdings

1. McCoy failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland because the proposed testimony would not have materially contradicted Marcel's testimony and would not have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
2. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's isolated reference to 'God given common sense' or for failing to strike the entire venire after one prospective juror made comments about Islam.
3. Counsel's concession during voir dire that a robbery had occurred was a reasonable strategic decision and did not constitute ineffective assistance.
4. McCoy failed to prove that counsel did not advise him about the consequences of testifying.
5. McCoy failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's unsuccessful efforts to use Marcel and witnesses from the Lee's Chicken robbery for impeachment.
6. Because McCoy failed to prevail on any individual ineffective-assistance claim, he could not obtain relief on cumulative error.
7. McCoy's Ring challenge was procedurally barred because the same constitutional issue had been raised and rejected on direct appeal, and the claim was also without merit under then-controlling federal precedent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present proposed alibi or impeachment witnesses concerning Marcel's June 14 conversation with McCoy.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present Victor Lynn Williams as a witness regarding the victim's presence at the ABC Liquors store before the murder.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to religious references during voir dire and the penalty phase or for failing to move to strike the entire venire after a prospective juror made comments about Islam.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for conceding during voir dire that a robbery had occurred.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise McCoy adequately about the consequences of testifying.
6. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present Marcel and witnesses from the Lee's Chicken robbery to impeach Marcel.
7. Whether the alleged individual errors constituted cumulative ineffective assistance.
8. Whether McCoy's Ring v. Arizona challenge to Florida's capital sentencing scheme was cognizable in postconviction proceedings.

Disposition

affirmed