KENNETH WAYNE HARDWICK, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution, finding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that the claim regarding arbitrary application of the death penalty was procedurally barred.
[1] A claim that the death penalty is applied arbitrarily based on race and other impermissible factors cannot be raised for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding.
[2] Failure to litigate a claim that a trial court erred by refusing a defendant's proposed penalty phase jury instruction does not constitute ineffective assistance of appel…
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 intelligencePetitioner, a prisoner under sentence of death, sought a writ of habeas corpus and a stay of execution, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate c…
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 Stay Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Kenneth Hardwick, is a prisoner under sentence of death whose convictions and sentence of death were affirmed by this Court in Hardwick v. State, 461 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1120, 105 S.Ct. 2369, 86 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985). Hardwick petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus and a stay of execution. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. We deny the requested relief.
Hardwick alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate two issues before this Court: the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury in accordance with the defendant’s proposed penalty phase instruction. Hard-wick also seeks to have this Court reevaluate our prior holdings concerning the arbitrary application of the death penalty based on “race and other impermissible factors.”
In support of this latter contention, Hardwick directs our attention to the fact that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari allegedly to review this issue in McCleskey v. Kemp, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3331, 92 L.Ed.2d 737 (1986), and Hitchcock v. Wainwright, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2888, 90 L.Ed.2d 976 (1986). Not only have we previously rejected this claim, see, e.g., Adams v. State, 449 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1984), we have also held that this claim cannot be raised for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding. Stewart v. Wainwright, 494 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, Hardwick is procedurally barred from raising this issue in this petition. We reject Hardwick s claim that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The first claimed instance of ineffectiveness concerns appellate counsel’s failure to litigate before this Court the trial judge’s refusal to give the defense’s requested jury instruction at the penalty phase of Hardwick’s trial. The requested instruction was based on certain language used by this Court in Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla.1975).
We have never held such an instruction to be mandatory and, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the standard instruction which was given at petitioner’s trial accurately informed the jury of its role in penalty phase proceedings. It was certainly not ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to raise this claim on appeal.
The second claimed instance of ineffective assistance concerns appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting petitioner’s convictions. While it arguably may have been a wiser strategy to present this argument, we cannot say that failure to do so was “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
In our review of cases involving imposition of the death penalty we have been confronted with a wide range of appellate strategies; some advocates raise every conceivable issue while others present only those issues the advocate feels are the most meritorious. There is no single correct approach. Further, this Court independently reviews each conviction and sentence to ensure they are supported by sufficient evidence. For instance, in petitioner’s direct appeal we noted that his fingerprint was found to the left of the driver’s side of the victim’s vehicle, and his palm print was found on the bottom sheet of the victim’s bed. Hardwick v. State, 461 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 1984).
These facts coupled with the other evidence presented at petitioner’s trial were sufficient to affirm the convictions and we cannot conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing the point here.
Accordingly, Hardwick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and request for stay of execution are denied.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARK-ETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sireci, 502 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1987)…that the death penalty is imposed in a racially discriminatory manner must be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief as opposed to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Stewart v. Wainwright, 494 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1986); Hardwick v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 796 (Fla.1986). Further, we have already rejected the identical claim raised by Sireci on his initial motion for post-conviction relief. 469 So. 2d at 120. Moreover, Sireci would be procedurally barred from raising this issue in a subsequent 3.850 motio…
-
Lowe v. State, 2 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 2008)…n raised, Lowe would have been entitled to a new trial. Although appellate counsel did not raise this issue, this Court “independently reviews each conviction and sentence to ensure they are supported by sufficient evidence.” Hardwick v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla.1986). In Lowe’s direct appeal, although the Court did not expressly state in its decision that it found the evidence sufficient to affirm Lowe’s convictions, it noted that Lowe’s fingerprints had been found at the scene of the crime, his…
-
Henderson v. Dugger, 925 F.2d 1309 (11th Cir. 1991)…tly premeditated), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 911, 105 S.Ct. 3538, 87 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985). . See Hill, 422 So. 2d at 818-19. . Henderson v. State, 463 So. 2d at 201. . 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). . See Hardwick v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla.1986) (instruction based on Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla.1975) (per curiam), not required to be given), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1042, 107 S.Ct. 1987, 95 L.Ed.2d 827 (1987). . See Harich v. Dugger, 844 F. 2d 1464, 1475 n. 16 (1…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1975)
- Hardwick v. State, 461 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1984)
- Gaskins v. South Carolina, 471 U.S. 1120 (U.S. 1985)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 471 U.S. 1120 (U.S. 1985)
- Adams v. State, 449 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1984)
- Stewart v. Louie L. Wainwright, 494 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1986)