Charles C. Peterson v. State of Florida; Charles C. Peterson v. Michael D. Crews

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Charles C. Peterson’s postconviction motion challenging his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel concerning juror challenges, eyewitness identifications, evidentiary issues, mitigation, and cumulative error. It found appellate counsel deficient for misstating Peterson’s conviction history in collateral cases but held that the error did not undermine confidence in the appellate result.

Holdings

1. A postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance for failing to make or preserve a cause challenge requires the defendant to demonstrate that the juror was actually biased. Peterson failed to show actual bias or that a biased juror served on his jury.
2. Counsel's strategic selection of jurors who might be favorable during the penalty phase, even if not ideal during the guilt phase, did not constitute deficient performance. Peterson also failed to establish prejudice.
3. On the facts of this case, counsel was not ineffective for failing to consult an eyewitness-identification expert because the proposed testimony would have been cumulative and Peterson failed to show either deficient performance or prejudice.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for declining to file a suppression motion where the decision was a reasonable strategic choice to attack the identifications before the jury rather than risk undermining the defense strategy.
5. A cumulative-error claim fails when the individual ineffective-assistance claims do not independently establish deficient performance and prejudice.
6. Appellate counsel performed deficiently by telling the court that Peterson had either been convicted or pleaded guilty to each collateral robbery when the record showed that he had been charged and convicted in only the Family Dollar case. Peterson nevertheless failed to prove prejudice, so habeas relief was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge five jurors for cause or use peremptory challenges against them.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult an eyewitness-identification expert or present such testimony.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress in-court and out-of-court identifications.
4. Whether the cumulative effect of alleged guilt-phase and penalty-phase errors warranted postconviction relief.
5. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for incorrectly representing that Peterson had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to all three collateral robberies.

Disposition

affirmed