MCARTHUR BREEDLOVE, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., 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.
McArthur Breedlove, a death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that Crawford v. Washington should be applied retroactively to his case. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Crawford is not retroactive to cases on collateral review.
Crawford v. Washington is not retroactive to cases on collateral review, and therefore Breedlove's habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence based on Crawford is denied.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. …
[2] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied if the petitioner's claims rely on a non-retroactive legal precedent.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because we have held that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), is not retroactive in Chandler v. Crosby, No. SC04-518, 916 So. 2d 728, 2005 WL 2456006 (Fla. Oct. 6, 2005), we deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”
The court's holding that Crawford is not retroactive and therefore provides no basis for relief in Breedlove's habeas petition.
Breedlove was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, grand theft, and petit theft, and was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The conv…
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 Brady Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
McArthur Breedlove petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. Breedlove was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, grand theft, and petit theft and was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. This Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence on direct appeal. Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1, 10 (Fla.1982). The facts and procedural history of this case are set out in this Court’s prior opinions. See id.; Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1991) (trial court’s denial of evidentiary hearing on merits of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion as to Brady1 claim was proper); Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1992) (reversing summary denial, ordering evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance at sentencing claim, and denying remaining claims); State v. Breedlove, 655 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1995) (error in jury instructions on heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator was harmless); Breedlove v. State, 692 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1997) (affirming denial of postconviction claim of ineffective assistance because prejudice prong was not demonstrated); Breedlove v. Crosby, 868 So. 2d 522 (Fla.2003) (denying claim that admission of hearsay evidence at penalty phase was error following Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 200, 125 S.Ct. 200, 160 L.Ed.2d 108 (2004).
Because we have held that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), is not retroactive in Chandler v. Crosby, No. SC04-518, 916 So. 2d 728, 2005 WL 2456006 (Fla. Oct. 6, 2005), we deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., specially concurs with an opinion, in which CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur. . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
WELLS, J.,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority’s decision in this case and agree that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), should not apply retroactively. However, for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Chandler v. Crosby, No. SC04-518, 916 So. 2d 728, 2005 WL 2456006 (Fla. Oct. 6, 2005), I would hold that these petitions are procedurally barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(d)(3) and also that the claims raised are not viable habeas claims under rule 3.851(d)(2)(B).
CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walton v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 661 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2011)…arks omitted). Walton alleges that several petitioners have filed untimely applications for collateral relief in the Florida Supreme Court, which denied them on the merits. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400 (Fla.2005); Breedlove v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 726 (Fla.2005); Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728 (Fla.2005); Porter v. Crosby, 840 So. 2d 981 (Fla.2003). Walton contends that, because the Florida Supreme Court declined to dismiss those petitions as untimely, the simultaneous filing rule has not bee…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1992)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1991)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 692 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1997)
- Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2005)
- State v. McArthur Breedlove, 655 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1995)