THEODORE CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Theodore Harris, convicted and sentenced to death for a 1981 murder, seeks post-conviction habeas corpus relief claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for inadequately challenging the validity of the arrest warrant affidavit. The Florida Supreme Court denies relief, holding that the claim amounts to an impermissible re-litigation of an issue already addressed on direct appeal and does not satisfy the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court denies relief, holding that Harris is impermissibly attempting to re-litigate an issue already ruled upon on direct appeal through a post-conviction habeas corpus petition, and that his allegations do not establish a deficiency of appellate counsel that compromised the appellate process under Strickland v. Washington standards.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to re-argue legal claims that have already been raised and ruled upon by the court.
[2] Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims require a showing of deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome of the appeal, compromising the appellate proces…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A petition for writ of habeas corpus was never intended to be a means to re-argue legal claims that have already been raised and ruled on by this Court.”
Establishes the core principle that habeas corpus petitions cannot be used to re-litigate previously decided issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of a 73-year-old woman. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his conviction and sente…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arrest Warrant Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a post-conviction relief proceeding in which the petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief from his conviction and sentence of death for the 1981 murder of a 73-year-old woman. This Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and the imposition of the death penalty in Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2181, 80 L.Ed.2d 563 (1984). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(9), Florida Constitution, and we deny relief.
In this proceeding, petitioner claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during his direct appeal to this Court. He alleges that his appellate counsel failed to adequately challenge the validity of the affidavit of probable cause that supported the warrant for his arrest.
The factual circumstances of this case are detailed in our initial opinion in Harris v. State. In that opinion, we expressly addressed the argument that “the arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause because the sworn affidavit upon which the warrant was issued contained factual misrepresentations and inaccuracies.” 438 So. 2d at 793. The trial judge, at a pretrial suppression hearing, specifically addressed this issue and concluded that there was sufficient content within the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, even after the elimination of the allegedly false statements. We agreed, finding that the facts in the affidavit were legally sufficient to support the arrest warrant.
Petitioner admits that the issue was presented and ruled on by this Court on direct appeal, but argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to adequately investigate and articulate the falsities and misstatements that were made by the investigating officer in the affidavit.
Petitioner argues that his prior appellate counsel devoted only 7¾⅛ out of 56 pages in his brief to this critical issue, failed to include any record of testimony of witnesses who contradicted allegations in the affidavit, failed to file a reply brief in response to numerous misstatements by the state, and failed to properly address this issue during oral argument before this Court. He contends that, had appellate counsel adequately presented the issue, this Court would have reversed the trial court’s ruling concerning the validity of the warrant and would have ordered the suppression of his confession.
Under the guise of a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, petitioner is seeking a second review of an issue that was previously raised and expressly addressed by this Court. A petition for writ of habeas corpus was never intended to be a means to re-argue legal claims that have already been raised and ruled on by this Court. Messer v. State, 439 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1983); see also In re Shriner, 735 F. 2d 1236 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Jones, 614 F. 2d 80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 945, 100 S.Ct. 2174, 64 L.Ed.2d 801 (1980); Sullivan v. State, 441 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1983); McCrae v. Wainwright, 439 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1983); Hargrave v. Wainwright, 388 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1980).
Further, in our view, petitioner’s allegations do not establish a deficiency of appellate counsel that caused a prejudicial impact on the petitioner by “compromising the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the outcome” under the standards expressed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So. 2d 207, 209 (Fla.1985); see also Smith v. State, 457 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1984).
For the reasons expressed, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, ALDERMAN, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blanco v. Louie L. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987)…gation of ineffective counsel will not be permitted to serve as a means of circumventing the rule that habeas corpus proceedings do not provide a second or substitute appeal. Steinhorst v. Wainwright, 477 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1985); Harris v. Wainwright, 473 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.1985); McCrae v. Wainwright, 439 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1983). We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. It is so ordered. [*1385] McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., con…
-
Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1990)…r, 559 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1990); Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1987). After appellate counsel raises an issue, failing to convince this Court to rule in an appellant’s favor is not ineffective performance. See Porter; Harris v. Wainwright, 473 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.1985). Allegations of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may not be used to evade the rule against using habe-as corpus as a second appeal. Porter; Harris; Blanco. This issue, therefore, is procedurally barred. If counsel had challeng…
-
Routly v. Louie L. Wainwright, 502 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1987)…Steinhorst v. Wainwright, 477 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla.1985). We therefore decline petitioner’s invitation to utilize the writ of habeas as a vehicle for the re-argument of issues which have been raised and ruled on by this Court. Harris v. Wainwright, 473 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.1985). Petitioner next attacks appellate counsel’s failure to adequately argue a multitude of issues including, among others, the constitutionality of Florida’s death penalty statute, the admissibility of Routly’s out-of-court statement, the v…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 463 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1985)
- Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1983)
- Saunders-El v. United States, 446 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1980)
- Smith v. State, 457 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1984)
- Sullivan v. State, 441 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1983)
- McCRAE v. Louie L. Wainwright, 439 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1983)
- Messer v. State, 439 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1983)
- Lenson A. Hargrave v. Louie L. Wainwright, 388 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1980)
- United States v. Jones, 614 F.2d 80 (5th Cir. 1980)