Harrel Franklin Braddy v. State of Florida; Harrel Franklin Braddy v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed Harrel Franklin Braddy’s appeal from the denial of postconviction relief and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court affirmed the denial of relief concerning the guilt phase but granted a new penalty phase under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State. The opinion also addressed claims concerning postconviction counsel, jury impartiality, ineffective assistance, disclosure, and prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.

Holdings

1. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel's motion to withdraw or in denying Braddy's motions to discharge counsel without Nelson hearings.
2. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Braddy access to most requested attorney work-product materials or to additional personnel and internal-affairs files, and the statutory and rule-based public-records procedures were not unconstitutionally applied.
3. Braddy was not entitled to postconviction relief on his ineffective-assistance claims concerning prosecutorial comments, expert testimony, DNA evidence, police practices, or forensic pathology.
4. Braddy was entitled to a new penalty phase because Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State apply retroactively to defendants sentenced under Florida's former capital-sentencing scheme after Ring v. Arizona, and his eleven-to-one jury recommendation made the error nonharmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying appointed capital collateral counsel's motion to withdraw and by failing to conduct Nelson inquiries on Braddy's pro se motions to discharge counsel.
2. Whether Florida's public-records statutes and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 were unconstitutionally applied and whether Braddy was entitled to additional records.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve challenges to prosecutorial closing argument and for failing to retain experts concerning police practices, DNA evidence, and forensic pathology.
4. Whether Braddy was deprived of a fair and impartial jury based on alleged nondisclosure by a juror.
5. Whether Braddy was entitled to habeas relief and a new penalty phase under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded