DAVID M. DEREN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that applied an outdated four-prong test to evaluate a Brady v. Maryland claim of prosecutorial suppression of favorable evidence. The Court clarified that the proper standard is the three-prong test from Strickler v. Greene, which the Court had previously adopted.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the Fourth District erred in applying the four-prong Melendez test instead of the three-prong Strickler test. The correct standard requires a defendant to show: (1) that favorable evidence, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced.
[1] A Brady violation requires a showing that favorable evidence was suppressed by the State, and that this suppression prejudiced the defendant.
[2] The test for a Brady violation requires proof that favorable evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and that the suppression resulted in prejudi…
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“We have since abandoned the four-prong test enunciated in Melendez, and followed the three-prong test outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Strickler v. Greene”
Establishes that the Florida Supreme Court had previously rejected the four-prong test and adopted the Strickler three-prong test
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid M. Deren sought review of a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision denying his Brady claim. The Fourth District had applied a four-prong test …
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.
PER CURIAM.
David M. Deren seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Deren v. State, 962 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of this Court in Floyd v. State, 902 So. 2d 775 (Fla.2005), Rogers v. State, 782 So. 2d 373 (Fla.2001), and Young v. State, 739 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1999), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons articulated below, we quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and remand for reconsideration in light of our opinions in Floyd, 902 So. 2d at 779, and Rogers, 782 So. 2d at 378, where we articulated the appropriate test to apply in claims made under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). See also Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1041 (Fla.2000); Way v. State, 760 So. 2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000).
DISCUSSION
In analyzing the Brady issue, the Fourth District stated:
To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must show that: (1) the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); (2) the defendant neither possesses the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to Appellant.
Deren, 962 So. 2d at 387 (citing Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla.1992)). We have since abandoned the four-prong test enunciated in Melendez, and followed the three-prong test outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999), where it enunciated the three significant elements of a Brady claim. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (to establish a Brady violation, the defendant has the burden to show (1) that favorable evidence, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced). We have applied the Strickler test numerous times. See Floyd, 902 So. 2d at 779; Rogers, 782 So. 2d at 378; Occhicone, 768 So. 2d at 1041; Way, 760 So. 2d at 910. Hence, the Fourth District erred in its statement of the elements of a Brady claim.
Accordingly, we quash and remand this cause to the Fourth District for reconsideration of the Brady issue under the standard set out above.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schoenwetter v. State, 46 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2010)…Court has previously rejected a substantive claim on the merits, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument. See Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992), receded from on other grounds by Deren v. State, 985 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla.2008). Because both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact, this Court employs a mixed standard of review, deferring to the circuit court’s factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evide…
-
Labrant D. Dennis v. State, 109 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 2012)…mplete cooperation with police. Accordingly, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise what would have been a meritless objection. See Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla.1992), receded from on other grounds by Deren v. State, 985 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla.2008). 6. Failure to Investigate Other Suspects Dennis contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate other suspects, particularly Lumpkins’ other sexual partners, whom she referenced in her daily planner. We aff…
-
McMillian v. State, 214 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2017)…it, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it. See Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla. 1992) (“Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make this meritless argument.”), receded from on other grounds by Deren v. State, 985 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 2008). (3) Failure to Redact Law Enforcement’s Statements Finally, McMillian claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to redact statements made by law enforcement during their recorded interview of McMillian, which…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000)
- WAY v. State, 760 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2000)
- Spanolia v. Lee's Crane Serv., Inc., 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Young v. State, 739 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1999)
- Rogers v. State, 782 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2001)
- Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1992)
- Floyd v. State, 902 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2005)
- Deren v. State, 962 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)