Alan Lyndell Wade v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Alan Lyndell Wade’s motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase, penalty phase, and jury selection, including challenges concerning suppression, evidentiary objections, mitigating evidence, and juror challenges. Wade’s convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and his two death sentences remained undisturbed.

Holdings

1. Wade failed to establish deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland for counsel's decisions concerning the hotel-room search, recorded phone call, seized evidence, ATM photographs, witness testimony, hearsay, and opinion testimony.
2. Wade failed to show that a suppression motion would have succeeded because the warrant affidavit established probable cause and the alleged omission did not negate probable cause.
3. The recording of Jackson and Cole impersonating the Sumners was relevant and was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the statements that the Sumners were alive and in Delaware.
4. Wade failed to prove ineffective assistance based on counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigation or counsel's concessions concerning pecuniary gain and HAC.
5. Wade failed to establish prejudice from counsel's alleged misstatement during voir dire because the jury was properly instructed that it was not required to recommend death merely because aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase for failing to file a suppression motion or object to evidence, recordings, photographs, hearsay, and opinion testimony.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to investigate or present additional mitigation and for conceding the pecuniary-gain and HAC aggravating circumstances.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire by misstating capital-sentencing law, failing to preserve cause challenges, or failing to challenge allegedly death-oriented jurors.
4. Whether the postconviction court properly denied Wade's Rule 3.851 claims after the evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed