Norman Blake McKenzie v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the summary denial of Norman Blake McKenzie’s initial Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 motion challenging his convictions and death sentences for two first-degree murders, along with his petition for habeas corpus. The court addressed claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, self-representation, access to a mental health expert, and the presentation of mitigation evidence. The opinion affirms the summary denial of the claims discussed in the provided text.

Holdings

1. Summary denial was proper because the claims were legally insufficient, procedurally barred, conclusory, or conclusively refuted by the record and therefore did not require an evidentiary hearing.
2. McKenzie failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; counsel's waiver of speedy trial was not an error requiring client consultation, and the record showed that McKenzie would have chosen self-representation regardless.
3. The Ake claim was procedurally barred because it was not raised on direct appeal, and the related ineffective-assistance claim failed because the record did not indicate that McKenzie's sanity at the time of the offenses was a legitimate or significant issue known to counsel.
4. A defendant who knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily elects self-representation bears responsibility for the conduct and quality of his own defense and cannot later obtain ineffective-assistance relief based on errors resulting from that self-representation.
5. McKenzie was not denied his right to compulsory process because he identified no witness whom he sought to call and never invoked compulsory process.
6. Mental illness alone is not an absolute constitutional bar to execution, and McKenzie was not entitled to habeas relief on that basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court properly summarily denied McKenzie's ineffective-assistance and related Rule 3.851 claims without an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether appointed counsel were deficient for failing to visit McKenzie before waiving speedy trial and for failing to seek a mental-health expert under Ake.
3. Whether McKenzie was denied compulsory process, access to legal materials, or a fair proceeding through prosecutorial misconduct and deficiencies involving interrogation recordings and the presentence investigation report.
4. Whether McKenzie's presentation of additional mitigation warranted post-conviction relief or a new penalty phase.
5. Whether cumulative error entitled McKenzie to relief.
6. Whether McKenzie's alleged mental illness made his execution unconstitutional and entitled him to habeas relief.

Disposition

affirmed