TERRY MELVIN SIMS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY SINGLETARY, 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.
Terry Melvin Sims, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief raising eight challenges to his conviction and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed most claims as procedurally barred and rejected Sims' remaining arguments regarding aggravating factors and ineffective appellate counsel.
The Court denied habeas corpus relief, finding most claims procedurally barred. As to the remaining issues: the claim about defective jury instructions on heinous, atrocious, or cruel was barred for failure to raise at trial and was harmless error in any event; and appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to take extraordinary measures to circumvent the Court's rulings or achieve relief.
[1] Claims not raised in the trial court are procedurally barred on subsequent review.
[2] Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to take extraordinary measures to circumvent a court's ruling or persuade the court to reverse itself.
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“Only two issues merit discussion, because the others are procedurally barred.”
Establishes that the court filtered out most of Sims' claims as procedurally barred and did not reach their merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerry Melvin Sims was an inmate under a sentence of death. His conviction and sentencing had been previously reviewed in direct appeals. Sims raised m…
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 Premeditated Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terry Melvin Sims, an inmate under sentence of death, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. The facts and procedural history of this case are stated in the prior reported cases arising from Sims’ conviction. Sims v. State, 602 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 1010, 122 L.Ed.2d 158 (1993); Sims v. State, 444 So. 2d 922 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1246, 104 S.Ct. 3525, 82 L.Ed.2d 832 (1984).
In this petition, Sims raises the following issues: (1) that he was denied a complete appellate review of his conviction and sentence in his direct appeal; (2) that the penalty phase jury was permitted to weigh invalid or impermissibly vague aggravating factors; (3) that this Court improperly applied an “automatic” affirmance of his sentence; (4) that the trial court erred in repeatedly chastising defense counsel in the jury’s presence; (5) that Sims was denied his right to be present during portions of his trial; (6) that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to return a special verdict indicating whether it was convicting Sims of felony murder or premeditated murder; (7) that Sims was denied his right to a reliable and nonarbitrary sentencing determination; and (8) that Sims’ appellate counsel was prejudicially ineffective.
Only two issues merit discussion, because the others are procedurally barred. As to issue (2), Sims now argues that his death sentence should be revisited in light of the recent opinions in Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), Stringer v. Black, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), Sochor v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992), and their progeny. To the extent this argument alleges a defective instruction on heinous, atrocious, or cruel, Sims’ claim is procedurally barred for failure to raise an objection at trial. Kennedy v. Singletary, 602 So. 2d 1285 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2, 120 L.Ed.2d 931 (1992). Moreover, we find nothing otherwise in the cases cited by Sims that would require us to revisit our prior determinations regarding Sims’ penalty phase. Moreover, in light of the weak case for mitigation, any conceivable error here clearly is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
As to issue (8), we cannot accept Sims’ argument that his appellate counsel was prejudicially ineffective in this instance. Sims’ appellate counsel moved this Court for an order reconstructing the substance of the pretrial motion hearings and jury charge conferences below. That motion was denied. Whatever else may be said about the validity of that ruling, appellate counsel cannot be said to have been ineffective simply for failing to take extraordinary measures in an effort either to circumvent the Court’s ruling or to persuade the Court to reverse itself. We find no other valid basis for a claim of ineffectiveness here. Moreover, we perceive no prejudice that Sims possibly could have suffered even if appellate counsel’s actions might be deemed deficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
For the foregoing reasons, the requested relief is denied.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. KOGAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which BARKETT, C.J., concurs.
KOGAN, Justice,
specially concurring.
I adhere to my earlier view that Sims was denied a fair trial for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Sims v. State, 602 So. 2d 1253, 1258-59 (Fla.1992) (Kogan, J., dissenting). However, the majority opinion in that earlier case now is res judicata, and I cannot find a level of prejudice in the cognizable matters now raised by Sims to justify a finding of prejudicial ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. I otherwise concur with the majority.
BARKETT, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2000)…viction motion. See Sims v. State, 602 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1065, 113 S.Ct. 1010, 122 L.Ed.2d 158 (1993). Sims subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court, which was [*659] denied. See Sims v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1993). Sims filed a federal petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which was denied as to Sims’ conviction, but granted as to his sentence. See Sims v. Singletary, No. 93-1055-CIV-ORL-22 (M.D.F…
-
Sims v. State, 753 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2000)…d States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari. See Sims v. Florida, 506 U.S. 1065, 113 S.Ct. 1010, 122 L.Ed.2d 158 (1993). Sims next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court, which we denied. See Sims v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1993). Sims filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That court denied relief as to his conviction, but granted relief as to the sentence. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affi…
-
Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1993)…ty of the instruction [*169] in this case. We have repeatedly held that claims are proeedurally barred where there was a failure at trial to object to the instruction on the grounds of vagueness or unconstitutionality. See, e.g., Sims v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1993); Mills v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1993); Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Turner v. Dugger, 614 So. 2d 1075, 1081 (Fla.1992); Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1992)
- Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1992)
- Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1992)
- Sims v. State, 444 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1983)
- Sims v. State, 602 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1992)
- Palmer v. United States, 467 U.S. 1246 (U.S. 1984)
- Durant v. United States, 467 U.S. 1246 (U.S. 1984)
- Kennedy v. Singletary, 602 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1992)