Fear Not Law Articles: STATE OF FLORIDA vs. RATNER

PEEDE vs

PEEDE vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC04-2094

____________

ROBERT IRA PEEDE,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

____________

No. SC05-1885

____________

ROBERT IRA PEEDE,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, etc.,

Respondent.

[January 11, 2007]

STORY CONTINUED FROM PART IIâ€¦â€¦..

Ring v. Arizona

Peede next argues that Florida's death penalty statute is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). Both the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that Ring does not apply retroactively. See Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400, 405 (Fla. 2005); Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 353 (2004). Peede's death sentence became final long before Ring was decided in 2002; therefore, Peede cannot rely on Ring to find his death sentence unconstitutional. See Washington v. State, 907 So. 2d 512, 514 (Fla.) (finding defendant not entitled to relief under Ring because Ring is not applied retroactively), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 802 (2005). Thus, we hold that the trial court properly denied this claim.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel

Failure to Challenge the Introduction of Collateral Crime Evidence

In his first issue in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Peede argues that appellate counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to raise the issue that the trial court erred in admitting collateral crime evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are appropriately presented in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1069 (Fla. 2000). Consistent with the Strickland standard, to grant habeas relief based on ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, this Court must determine

first, whether the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and, second, whether the deficiency in performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result.

Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 1986). In raising such a claim, â€

Description	Court have on appeal a decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal declaring invalid portions of section 924.07(1), Florida Statutes (2003), as applied to appeals to the district courts. Court have jurisdiction. See art.V, S 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the decision of the district court and hold that the district courts of appeal have discretionary jurisdiction over nonfinal appeals certified by the county court to be of great public importance when the order is one that is otherwise appealable to the circuit court under section 924.07, Florida Statutes.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.