Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> JAABlog

Criminal Law

: JAABlog

CASES

By Jeffrey Ivashuk

Criminal law -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Post conviction relief -- Counsel -- Ineffectiveness -- No error in denying relief on claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present voluntary intoxication defense where defendant failed to present evidence that he was intoxicated at time of murder and, accordingly, failed to establish any reasonable basis upon which to assert this affirmative defense -- Further, counsel made reasonable tactical decision not to pursue defense, and trial court also found, based on competent, substantial evidence, that defendant refused to participate in any defense that required him to admit that he did the shooting -- Sentencing phase of trial -- Investigation or presentation of mitigating evidence -- No error in denying relief on claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of alcohol abuse or dependency in support of impaired capacity mitigator and for failing to investigate and present school, military, and employment records in mitigation -- No error in denying relief on claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to retain adequate mental health experts and provide experts with necessary background information -- No error in summarily denying remaining claims, including claim based on trial counsel's failure to investigate and present, and trial court's failure to find, defendant's age, low IQ, and good jail behavior as mitigators; claim that jury was misled by trial court's repeated instructions that its sentencing role was merely advisory; claim that jury instruction and state's argument shifted to defendant the burden of proving that death was inappropriate sentence; claim that jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague and allowed jury to consider murder in the course of a felony aggravator as an automatic aggravator; claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate forensic evidence and obtain proper forensic experts; claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to introduction of gruesome photographs; claim that rule prohibiting juror interviews is unconstitutional; and claim that defendant is innocent of death penalty due to lack of valid aggravating circumstances -- No error in summarily denying claims that Florida's death penalty is unconstitutionally vague and violates Ring v...continue to full post

Full post as published by JAABlog on February 05, 2008 (boomark / email).