Jerone Hunter v. State of Florida and Jerone Hunter v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Jerone Hunter’s motion for postconviction relief and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance claims concerning penalty-phase mitigation, future prison conduct evidence, counsel’s description of the jury-vote requirement, and handling of a codefendant’s testimony. The court also rejected or found procedurally barred Hunter’s constitutional challenges to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme.

Holdings

1. Hunter failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice because counsel reasonably focused on mental-health mitigation and the additional social-history evidence was largely cumulative of evidence presented during the penalty phase.
2. Hunter failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel reasonably chose a mental-health mitigation strategy that could conflict with evidence portraying Hunter as unlikely to engage in future violence, and the additional evidence would not have produced a reasonable probability of a different sentence.
3. Hunter failed to establish prejudice from counsel's statement that a majority vote was required because the jury was correctly instructed and each death recommendation exceeded the stated majority threshold.
4. Hunter failed to establish prejudice from counsel's failure to preserve an objection and move for a mistrial because Cannon's brief testimony was not so prejudicial as to vitiate the trial and was cumulative of other evidence.
5. Hunter's constitutional challenges concerning the Florida Bar rule, the advisory-jury instruction, Florida's capital-sentencing scheme, and Ring were procedurally barred because they either were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal.
6. The cumulative-error claim failed because the individual claims were either procedurally barred or meritless.
7. Florida's death-penalty scheme was not unconstitutional merely because a jury could recommend death by a simple majority vote.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel were ineffective during the penalty phase by failing to present additional nonstatutory mitigation evidence.
2. Whether trial counsel were ineffective during the penalty phase by failing to present evidence concerning Hunter's future conduct and potential for rehabilitation in prison.
3. Whether trial counsel were ineffective because counsel stated during closing argument that a majority jury vote was required to impose a death sentence.
4. Whether trial counsel were ineffective during the guilt phase by failing to preserve an objection and move for a mistrial concerning codefendant Cannon's testimony and refusal to answer questions.
5. Whether Hunter's constitutional challenges to Florida's capital-sentencing procedures and related claims were procedurally barred.
6. Whether cumulative alleged errors warranted postconviction relief.
7. Whether Florida's nonunanimous jury recommendation procedure for a death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.

Disposition

affirmed