St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog
In Florida, prisoners sentenced to death often attempt to raise postconviction claims based on newly discovered evidence or alleged constitutional violations. However, courts closely scrutinize such filings, particularly when a defendant files successive motions decades after conviction. A recent decision by a Florida court illustrates how difficult it can be for a prisoner to prevail on such claims when the evidence was available at the time of trial or when the record otherwise refutes the allegations. If you are facing a serious criminal charge, an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and present a full defense at trial.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and sexual battery stemming from the 1992 death of a two-year-old child. The prosecution’s evidence showed that the child suffered severe blunt force injuries while in the defendant’s care, and the medical examiner concluded that the cause of death was a cerebral hemorrhage resulting from four separate blows to the head. The defendant, however, testified that the child experienced a medical emergency while another person was present in the apartment and that he accidentally dropped her in the shower while attempting to revive her. The jury rejected this account and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed.
It is alleged that in the years following his conviction, the defendant pursued multiple rounds of postconviction relief. His initial postconviction motion and habeas petition were denied, and subsequent motions were also rejected. In prior appeals, the court emphasized the “overwhelming” and “ample” evidence presented at trial that the defendant intentionally inflicted the fatal injuries.
Allegedly, in his fourth successive motion for postconviction relief, the defendant relied on a 2022 supplemental report from a forensic pathologist who reviewed microscopic slides generated during the victim’s autopsy. The defense expert concluded that the child had pre-admission pneumonia, which might have explained her respiratory distress. The defendant argued that this evidence undermined the State’s theory that blunt force trauma caused the child’s death, and he claimed that the State had suppressed the slides in violation of Brady v. Maryland. He also contended that the slides constituted newly discovered evidence supporting relief from his death sentence.
Challenges of Post-Conviction Claims
On appeal, the court conducted a de novo review of the summary denial of the defendant’s motion under Rule 3.851 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court explained that successive postconviction claims are subject to strict time limitations, and to qualify for an exception, a prisoner must show that the facts were previously unknown and could not have been discovered through due diligence. Because the defendant was aware of both the existence of the autopsy slides and the medical examiner’s finding of pneumonia at the time of trial, the court concluded that his claims were untimely.
The court further addressed the merits of the defendant’s Brady claim. To prevail on such a claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that favorable evidence was suppressed by the State and that it was material to guilt or punishment. Here, the court found no suppression because the slides were disclosed and available for defense review. The fact that a new expert later reached a different conclusion did not amount to a constitutional violation.
As for materiality, the court reasoned that even if the slides suggested pneumonia, the overwhelming evidence of blunt force trauma, including the victim’s injuries, the presence of blood on the defendant’s clothing, and the circumstances of the child’s condition, demonstrated that the pneumonia evidence would not have altered the outcome. The court also rejected the newly discovered evidence claim, noting that the slides were not new and that the evidence was not of such a nature as to probably produce an acquittal or a lesser sentence.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the denial of relief, concluding that the defendant’s claims were both untimely and without merit.
Meet with a Trusted St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney
Capital cases often involve complex medical, forensic, and constitutional issues that can shape the outcome at trial and on appeal. Once a conviction and sentence become final, raising new claims becomes increasingly difficult under Florida’s postconviction rules. If you are facing charges involving homicide or other serious offenses, it is critical to work with a defense attorney who can thoroughly investigate the evidence, challenge the State’s case, and preserve all issues for appeal. The experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can help you evaluate your options and advocate for the best possible outcome. Contact our St. Petersburg office today at 727-289-0222 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.