Supreme Court of Florida

In a death penalty challenge, relief is denied where: 1) appellant was not entitled to recusal of the trial judge from post-conviction proceedings under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330, despite the judge having testified in a hearing regarding an unsigned sentencing order in the trial court's records, because that hearing was unnecessary and thus appellant's motion for disqualification was legally insufficient; 2) during the guilt phase, counsel's decisions were within the norms of reasonable professional conduct; 3) counsel performed a reasonable investigation of mitigating factors during the sentencing phase; and 4) because appellant was the triggerman, new evidence of the alleged mastermind receiving only a life sentence did not entitle appellant to a life, rather than death, sentence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/26/2008
• Published 09/26/2008

Judges

• PER CURIAM.

Court

• Supreme Court of Florida

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Harry P. Brody and Jeffrey M. Hazen of Brody and Hazen, PA., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee.