SMITH vs.STATE
Supreme Court of Florida
________________________
Nos. SC03-454 & SC05-100
________________________
DERRICK TYRONE SMITH,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
DERRICK TYRONE SMITH,
Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, etc.,
Respondent.
[March 9, 2006]
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Smith, a prisoner sentenced to death, appeals orders of the circuit court denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. As explained below, we affirm the circuit court's denial of relief and deny Smith's petition.
I. HISTORY OF THE CASE
In November 1983, Smith was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death for the March 1983 murder of cab driver Jeffrey Songer. In brief, Smith and his codefendant Derrick Johnson called a cab with the intent to rob the driver. After the driver took them to the provided address and stopped the cab, all three exited the vehicle. When Songer tried to flee, Smith fatally shot him.
In Smith v. State, 492 So. 2d 1063, 1067 (Fla. 1986), we reversed Smith's conviction and sentence of death, remanding the case for a new trial. Upon retrial in May 1990, a jury again convicted him of capital murder, and the court sentenced him to death. On direct appeal, we affirmed. Smith v. State, 641 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1163 (1995).[1]
Subsequently, Smith filed in circuit court an amended motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised numerous claims.[2] After a Huff[3] hearing, the circuit court issued an order denying claims on which an evidentiary hearing was not ordered. After the evidentiary hearing, the court denied all remaining claims.
Smith appeals. He also has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We first address the issues raised on appeal and then the claims urged in the habeas petition.
II. THE ISSUES ON APPEAL
Smith raises five claims in this appeal: (A) that the State withheld material and exculpatory evidence and knowingly presented false or misleading evidence; (B) that the circuit court erred in limiting the scope of the postconviction evidentiary hearing; (C) that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the guilt phase of trial; (D) that newly discovered evidence proves Smith's innocence; and (E) that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase of trial. Several of these issues contain subclaims. We discuss each issue in turn below and affirm the circuit court's denial of relief as to all of them.
A. The Brady and Giglio Claims
Smith contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding that the state's failure to provide defendant with favorable, material evidence violates due process), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (holding that a defendant's due process right is violated when the State knowingly allows false, material testimony to be presented at trial). We will address each alleged violation in turn.
1. Failure to Disclose
Smith alleges the State violated Brady by failing to disclose favorable information contained in State documents related to the murder investigation. â€
