Patton v. State (2004)

Patton v. State, 878 So. 2d 368, 375 (Fla. 2004).

See Henry v. State, 948 So.2d 609, 626-27 (Fla.2006); Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.2004); Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 616 (Fla.2003).

See Patton v. State, 878 So. 2d 368, 376 (Fla. 2004) (“Counsel’s decision to forego the insanity defense was not unreasonable under Strickland since she had no evidence that [defendant] suffered from a mental disease or defect.”); Whitfield v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 10-CV-1638, 2013 WL 6198855 , at *5 (M.D.

See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 , 289–90 (Fla. 2003); Downs v. State, 740 So. 2d 506, 518 (Fla. 1999); Card v. Dugger, 512 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1987); Parks v. State, 101 So. 3d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Wimberly v. State, 50 So. 3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also McClenney v. State, 351 So. 3d 649 , 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); Patton v. State, 878 So. 2d 368, 375 (Fla. 2004); Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1179 (Fla. 2004).

This Court has explained that “a proportionality review is inherent in this Court’s direct appellate review and the issue is considered regardless of whether it is discussed in the opinion or raised by a party.” Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004).

Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 685 (Fla.2010) (citing Doorbal v. State, 983 So.2d 464, 482 (Fla.2008)); Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004) (citing Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203, 207 (Fla.1998) (finding that eonclusory allegations are also not sufficient for appellate purposes in habeas proceedings)).

This Court has stated, “[A] proportionality review is inherent in this Court’s direct appellate review and the issue is considered regardless of whether it is discussed in the opinion or raised by a party....” Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004).

As we have routinely stated, “strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.” Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla. 2004) (quoting Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000)).

See Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810, 823 (Fla.2005); Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004). .

This Court has explained that “a proportionality review is inherent in this Court’s direct appellate review and the issue is considered regardless of whether it is discussed in the opinion or raised by a party.” Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004).

See Overton v. State, 976 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting Ring claim where one of the aggravating circumstances was defendant's prior convictions for contemporaneous murders); Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1147 (Fla.2006); Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004); see also Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 619 (Fla.2003) (holding that the prior violent felony conviction aggravator is "a factor which under Apprendi and Ring need not be found by the jury").

This Court has explained that "a proportionality review is inherent in this Court's direct appellate review and the issue is considered regardless of whether it is discussed in the opinion or raised by a party." Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004).

Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla. 2004).

See Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432 , 456 n. 16 (Fla.2002) (finding that the defense's pretrial objection to a jury instruction on the "vulnerable victim" statutory aggravator was not preserved for appellate review since defense counsel did not object to the instruction when it was given at trial); Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 379 (Fla.2004) (finding that although the defense moved to suppress evidence before the trial, the objection was not preserved since the defense f…

Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 375 (Fla.2004) (stating test for insanity in Florida); Fla. R.Crim.

As in past cases, "[w]e decline to re-address an issue that has already been considered and resolved on the direct appeal." Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004).

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368 , 380 (Fla. 2004) ("[P]roportionality review is inherent in this Court's direct appellate review and the issue is considered regardless of whether it is discussed in the opinion or raised by a party. . . ."); see also Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390 , 407 (Fla. 2003) ("Due to the uniqueness of the penalty, this Court addresses the propriety of all death sentences in a proportionality review."); Fla.R.App.P. 9.142(a)(6) ("In *Page 1051 deat…

Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004). [18] See supra note 1. [19] See supra note 2. [20] The only matter specifically identified by petitioner about which he would like to interview jurors is the effect that the medical examiner's testimony had on the jury.

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004) (holding that conclusory allegations are insufficient to properly state a claim).

Lawrence v. State, 831 So.2d 121, 129 (Fla.2002) ("This Court has held that defense counsel's strategic choices do not constitute deficient conduct if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected."); see also Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.2004) (rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised in 3.850 motion, in part because trial counsel "thoroughly considered her options [and] weighed the pros and cons [of the action]").

See *1151 Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 375 (Fla.2004) ("The difference between a disorder and a disease is not insignificant.").

See Mignotte v. State, 576 So. 2d 809, 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that “prosecutor’s remarks did not constitute an impermissible denigration of the insanity defense” because prosecutor merely argued that “in this case, the defense was inapplicable” (emphasis omitted)); see also Patton v. State, 878 So. 2d 368, 375 (Fla. 2004) (“[A] defendant can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if he or she commits an unlawful act, but by reason of a mental infirmity, disease, …

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 374 (Fla.2004).

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004) (a summary or conclusory allegation is insufficient to allow the appellate court to examine the specific allegations against the record); see also Brown v. State, 894 So.2d 137, 160-61 (Fla.2004) (petition for ineffective assistance of counsel facially insufficient for failure to show how outcome of case would have been different).

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla.2004) (holding that conclusory allegations are insufficient for appellate purposes).

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 379 (Fla.2004) (“In the absence of fundamental error, appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise [an] unpreserved issue.”).

See, e.g., Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004); Duest v. State, 855 So.2d 33, 49 (Fla.2003) (“We have previously rejected claims under Apprendi and Ring in cases involving the aggravating factor of a previous conviction of a felony involving violence.”), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 993 , 124 S.Ct. 2023 , 158 L.Ed.2d 500 (2004).

Ring, 536 U.S. at 597 n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 2428 ; see also Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004) (“The existence of this prior violent felony aggravator satisfies the mandates of the United States and Florida constitutions .... ”); Kormondy v. State, 845 So.2d 41 , 54 n. 3 (Fla.2003) (finding the prior violent felony aggravator through contemporaneous charges of robbery, sexual assault, and battery included in the indictment and affirmed by the jury satisfies Ring’s requ…

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 374-75 (Fla.2004) (stating that Florida follows a modified version of the M'Naghten rule).

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 374-75 (Fla.2004). [12] On a related note, Owen argues that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when the trial court informed juror Griffin that the trial would not involve more than one alleged victim.

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.2004) (finding counsel's decision to limit use of voluntary intoxication defense in order to disassociate defendant from drug abuse was reasonable and not ineffective); Howell v. State, 877 So.2d 697, 705 (Fla.2004) ("A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight ... and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time." (quoting Strickla…

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004) ("The existence of this prior violent felony aggravator satisfies the mandates of the United States and Florida Constitutions. . . .").

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368 (Fla.2004) (a summary or conelusory allegation is insufficient for appellate purposes to examine the specific allegations against the record); see also Brown v. State, 894 So.2d 137 (Fla.2004) (petition for ineffective assistance of counsel facially insufficient for failure to show how outcome of case would have been different).

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 380 (Fla. 2004) (holding that conclusory allegations are insufficient for appellate purposes).

Ring, 536 U.S. at 597 n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 2428 ; see also Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 377 (Fla.2004) ("The existence of this prior violent felony aggravator satisfies the mandates of the United States and Florida constitutions. . . ."); Kormondy v. State, 845 So.2d 41 , 54 n. 3 (Fla.2003) (finding the prior violent felony aggravator through contemporaneous charges of robbery, sexual assault, and battery included in the indictment and affirmed by the jury satisfies Ring's req…

See Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.2004) (rejecting the defendant's claim that the voluntary intoxication defense was not pursued as vigorously as it should have been when the record indicated that defense counsel relied on the limited evidence of intoxication elicited from the State's witnesses, all of which was enough to support a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication).