SC>ld - 305]

IN THE SUPKEME CôllRT 8FFLåRTRA

K AS HIM L ISREM,by ànd t hrough his mo+herand nex† Friend, AudreyYos†eraS hís leyai agent,

Pe1iÑoner, DCA No. 4Dio- zo7sV. L T No. 2002-990-CFSTATE OF FlôKIÞA,

Kes pondert f .

P'ETITIONEKS &KIEF ÞL5CRETI0NAD'.TdRISkIE TION

Gr< Pe†Hún For r<eview

Frèm Fo,a rth Kstc|c+Cour† GF Appeal,5+ak

of Flonda

Rudrey Fos4er

viero Beach , FL 3a

TABL E OF CoMTE'NTSCoMTENTS PAGE

TABLE OFCONTENTS - - . - - - - - - -

AUTN00RITIES CITEÞ - - - - - - . - ïi

PRE LIMINARY STATEMENT _ . - - . - - Notre

STATEMENT OF THECASE ANÞFACTS -. _ _ _ i-s

SUMMARY CF ARGUMENT .. - - - . , - 49

ARGUMENT - . . - . - - - . - - 103

THIS COURT SHôULO EXERCISEITS AtlTHôRTTY

Pl8SuANT TO ARTICLEY,SECTION 3GX'$)

0F THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTIDN TG REl/IEW

I6RAHIM V. STATE, A DICISION 0F THE FOUKTH

DISTRET COURT OF APPEAL. THAT CGNFLECTS WITHÞE EISIGNS OF|1%2%3MiB's SUMMEMECûURTON THE SAME GUESTI0N OFLAW

GONCUlSTOM - . - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - ._gz

CERTIFICATE ôF SEGICE . . . _ - .. - sz

AUTl10RITIES CITEÞ

CASES PAGES

Playd v. S+ate, so8 so > z d 175(fla,2002) . >1°> 3

Ford v. 2+ct+e, 825 So.zd 358<'Fla. 2oo 2 -p' Hd e ¤^8>N

Lbrcthim v. B†a†e,9y7so, 2d 1105(F¼, wh pcA 2007 hYû7ertKär v. S†ate,325Bo.2d I 6 (Fla. M8N ar<d L Au+o Par45 C°• V

f r1 So.24 9topiz CFla-l%o 10

PN,R.v.[3eacon N^07 Mc)gn2 ,So,2.ol 773,777(Fla.zoû5

LL S.CoNSTITU TION >ArrreredX V es 2

FLORIAA C°NSTITuTIoM

A r+.V, se c . 3<o <3 -

Ar†, I, Sec , /G

Ar+, I, Sec. 2229

A r+.I,Sec . 2-@@py ûjy EVIDENCE >90 2

FloR1pA gut£5 0FrougT636<a><2)(A><

3.970

3.750

CERTIFICATE 0F5E VICE19

,11,US

3>%¶,l4,I7,1%¯4%3o,El32-

33

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ANDF'ACTS

This case orig/nated out ofDrdían Rive r CountyOn Augus† ¼, 20û4 Pet/Honer pied not quit+y to

count one, Fi'r,s† De9ree Murder, two, Horne Invasion

Robberf , and three, Burg lary oPa Dwe //ing WhileArrned and Masxeci, and proceeded +o jury +rial,

August 18, 2004 a mistrial was declared . Augus†29, E 085 a secorrd trial was freld, atrd on Sep+em-

be r I, 2 00 5 the jury returned a verd ic†oFejait+yas charged In the Indic†menf-

Sep>+ernber 15, 2005 Petitiotrer was serrtenced

+o life,coun+one,life,count +wo, count three uvas

Ytte rGjed in+o count †wo arid 1;no†lrconcur ren†vA+k coHt,† orre..

Pe+i+ioner appealed the ver-dic+, and fire Four'HrD s†ríc†Cour† ofAppeal affëmed , Ibr'a/r/m v.S†ate, 147 So,2d N08 (¥14. Y"' DCA 2 0 da†eissued Fel>r-uary 9, 2 007').

February 1, 2005Fe+I+Ioner submit+ed a fe+/-+iotr For WH+ o F Habeqç Corpgs aHeq Íng IreeFfec -

¼4 Assistance oF Appe/fate Counse I , The Påtif Ionalleged that .'

Appe flate CounseI was |neffective For fail-Incy to argue p-re]udIce QS to N7e <'!>oneisSue raised on chFe c+ GPy eq/ ;Appellate Counsel was áreFFective forFal lincy to rctise the pt•eserved pla/rr+rial error +ka+crucial DNA evidence.

was admitted over objec+ion, where +hisdef>arted from a />roper chain ofcas-tody, aird bore evidence of +qrrtrem'nq jApre Ilate Counse I was ineffec+/ve For no†

raising inwffé féncy of evidence jAppeIlate Cotinsef ovas áreffectíve. Forno+·ra i s i nc) the denár/ of trial counselsMott'ot, for New tria ljAppe flate Counse / was ineFFec†ive For Fall-mq+o raise +he error of the use of video -

†aped e×cerP+5 oF testimony be Íny usedin p>lace of the complete †e5+|mony•

ebruary 21,200E the pe+îtion was dem'ed by +1re

our½ District -

Tanuary 142009Pe†itioner subrnítted a Pos+corrvè-

+|on moflon pursudtr+ to gute 1,sso,4cc arrpwr1|ed bya Metrror<airdum of L aw . T/rat rrrote'orr ata's derr/edby

+ke CircaZ+,Court b Irrdátn Kver county basedon S+a+e s resp>onse., and Petitiorrer appealed.neahá v-S+q+e nsee 4Prerrdix conta|rånq(EX-5Q†lreFourth Distric† per curram affirmed deci s,orr .

A +Irne ly o†iorrfo Keheah'rry and Reques+

('or Wri't+en opiniok were subter/Hed, and onAaqus† 2% 261 L,ClerK of Court, HonorerbleMarilyre seu+†eninullerderried that suff|cler1HFi led mo+1oir . See s'Ex-c). This proceedingFollow .

3

SUMMARY ôF THE A%ImEnr

This Court has jurísdic+ion irr the instant case

because the Fourfk Dàtrict £ourt ofAppeafdec is ion e xpress ly and dire.c+/3 conF//ef , wi+hdec isions of'+iris Courf

The Fourth Dis+ric+ courts Per Curiam AFMm

debision is irr direc+ and express conFlict wHbädh

State, EVE so.2d 175 <Pla. 2002'), which authorizes

an evidentiary hearínq ander Ru le 3,250 unless themo+1on and records conclust't-ely show that thedefendant is entit led to no relief , See Rate 3.sso(d),

Fla , R, c r im. P,THIs Most Horrorable Cour+ has the

au+ho r i+y under Ar t . Y, sec . 3(h>G), P I a .

C ons†.,anel ra le 9£0ca><zXA><i v>, M à·R.A .Fò +o revlew †his case becetuse +ke hold-aq Per Cur Iam AFPirrne.d by%e Yourth Þistric†Cour+ of Arreal, conFHe+s un'th†1re o+her

Four Þis†ric+sj l>u+ mos† trrr/>or†antly,several decisions oF +his C our-+ on the same

ques+1on oF law .

A+ bar,+he Four+k Distric+ erred wheni+ ¡>er cur latri aFFirwred +ke lower Courfso y t rúot1, whùk ke ld †fra f -'

'rne cour+ ador+s +he £+ates

reasonInq ȇe4wd}n9 9rounds 3Å5.The S+afek r,ea son|nc) m 9round 3

"s Ince +ke vWeatape was consWered

Forrner †estánony,{+\sas i FWillie Thornas had been presen†'For

+ke sec.ond †ria I and fes+/fjed.1+ is w|+kin the dEscre†ion oF½e+rla I court,+o 'rep I ay'+es†imony to

†he jury, I F reques†ed‡Since i+wasm Fac+ r,eciaez+ect,+kere was noerror in replaying'his tes+|mony,s ee Ehrkard+ on Ev|denc e> F•S . 70303.žž.,Rale 34to Rule of Cr|rn|ndlProc:edure,

he oy nion oF Dr. Martùr Tracer

as that the. two separafe D NA test

one gener«+ed by Dantei Népes et thezadiàn R|ver Cr|me Laboratory(ece)

5

ard +he second qenerated by br.SusanCropp oF †he F81<mi+ockandrb/ punkcombined resuits estab/Ished thatthe haIrs in que3Aon belongeg to the

Pe H+lorier, Kask|m Ibrakkrr.PrevÍously , on May b, 2009 the tr|a/ Court entered͆''s order Þ|smíssirry'In P'ar/ AndDenyirry' zn PartMo†Ìon For Post,ConváfÍon Rehd] Sranting Evi-dentÍary HeaArry,gpoírrHery Co unse (, And Se +†myS+atus Hearmaj .

Tr 501 Court further ordered T/re Öff|ce ofCrirnina l C onflic+ and Civ// Regiorral counse ihe appointed to represen+ the Defendant ±namendmq clairn Kr,

TH e_ amendraen+ was author i zect by the†riai Cour+ in ifs order oF May 5, z oo 9 '

1. Tr ial Court dismIssed ground I V wi ßrou†pre -udice For appo|rr+ed counsel to file an amended

clainc.2 , Trál Cour†dem*ed grounds I, lit, aMÚ V -3. On groutrd it, +r 611 Cour t gran†ed an e v|derrfiary heari'rry.

n. As previous ly no+ed,+ke trùr/ court adopted

s+a+eb reasoníncy in Finding claim IV le9atty insuf-

F|cient .

to

Trial Court FurHrer adopted S†ct+es reason-incj in findahy Hea+?rhe reti+1orrer fails to iridi-cct+e spec i F ¡cally what questÍons trÍœICounse/Fall to asK . Ils a resul++he re++ïoner has FM+oa Rege. erro r cmd for prejudée

fùrsuarrt to tge Mcry s, zoo order opgo|ntcor rf/r'c 4 courrseI fo draf4 en arneirdmen† 'to

round IV ofMotg'on for /%st,Con véhhñ Rehef

Tu19 10, 2009 the arnendertertf u>as subtrrí†+ed,

outlining a :series oFqueS¼ns tr|al counse ishould have asfed the ejerre+ic s exper+durrhy+r ia i rec3ardncy ÞNA evZdence .In he arkendmen4 e ounse I SP ec|fjed +/ra 4 :

Had theje qweç†/on3crrd atkery ms erm lar nct+ure }>e e t, included i'n de'Fense courrse is c ross exarnination

o F OK Trace the outc ome wouldh ,,have been differerrb

5ep+errel>er i@ 2oo9 He state respotyded†o Defendants A mendrnent +,o, Groundtv oFMohnPor fas( Convict|on Re||eF respanding that

Since |†Ís kn)(nown brow Or. Traceywou Id arrsemer +he ques+Ions ther e+|+|oner has, onc e acyainfailed

7

+o alleye erroryndfor prejud ice .Tr ial Court, in its o rder deny|ng defendants

arneadment to yround iVof mohon forposteonv(c-

+|on ve. llef Íncorpora+[edlby reFer;egc e the Sta te s

re$ponse to the a,prended c faim, Tire Court

adoptfed]+he S+ates reason/tr9 år finding theHhrDeFendant fdils to demonstrafe prepd|ce wherecounsel merely //sts quesh'ons Hra+ should haveheer< asjed Dr. Tracey durrerc3 cross exarrwrcMan.

ErJ+ is unXnown kow,Dr. Tracey wouldanswer the ques†ionss.

States response..rncorporatedby reFerence .Because the +rla/ Court denied this c la|m w|+/

ou+ koldinq the customary hear|n9, there is no way†o Know hop Dr . Tracey wou /d have answe red thequeStIons'. The only way to Know, is hold an evÜent|aryhean' ncy . The Cour + b elow should have re verse.d Hriscase bac X to the frûl Cour† For that hear Ing;Failure to reverse violated due race ys, equalf>ro†ec+1on,and 15·ei marnfes†injushc e ,

under these unique se+ of Fac ts and c ircurrr-s+ances,+k|s Most Honorable court shouldp ieree direc 4ly· through the PCA and' exerc ís e

au½ority to re solve tiris c onFlict|rry decIs6n,holcl|n<y +1rat pet|+|oner |s e.n+|+1ed +o c1n eviden-Fiary hear|ncy IF the trIa/ Courts ru/bg & tro faccorrepanieol by the record conclusive (y refut-in9 Hre 3230 claún,

ARGUMENT

WHETHER THE F0llRTH Þ1$TRlrT L'0MRT VfAVPEÁL"PERCURIAMAFFIDÒEt1510NIMIBRAHIM V- STATE 'tDID-2075(FLA,3LLLY I I, 2012} EXPRESSLYANDDIRECTLVCONFLICTS WITH FLoYD I/- STATE , 808S0.

2D 175 (FLA.zoo2) AND CASES crTED .

The florida Consti†uíÉon, grtic le V, SecÑo77 3(b)(3), aufkorIze3 thé C our + fo re view a deci-Sion aP ci diç+rIcf cour4 oF cipp>ea/,thqt exfressly

and direc+ty con F/Ic † with a dec ision oF this court

or año+her district C our 4 oF aPPeal • The purpose

oF +h|5†ype of discret/anary ½rEsdic+sori |s+oreduce. con FiIcts in +11e law +o the al>solu+e mirï Irnum

and+o a++empt +o unify decisi'ons oF the cippeNafecour +S . H and L Auto Parts Co . v- Dornan, in So ,.2cl 4toAtz <Pla.l%0). Thr's Court has a cons-†i+utiottal respons/b|//ty to resolve c o nFt Ic+3and enSure cons Esteert app//ccr†Ìorta f the lat»,

especially when a courtY op|nion contr-qvene,

10

narrrerous oHer decIs|ons• R!†£v.Beacon Prop.Mymt;>

892. so,zd 773,777(F la·2003)·zn his postconváh'on ruohon, Il>ryhiar rmåed G).

Glaims for relief, but only grounds ' M añds are

relevant here . The +r Ial Court denied †heseclaints w|½-out an eti jdenfIary heqrÉrtg.

In ground3, Pe+1tioner arcjued i'n fhe fr/q / Eaur+hd Counse I was ineffect|ve for omittinq to ob -jec†+o the replayincy oF tediatony af w;'+ness

W i i I ie Thornaç, he test ¡F/ed af /% h½btrers First+riai endin in a rnistr la1• He was not ava//aWe to+a3+/fy |n+he second +rä l . Durhy de/il>erahè>ns,

the jury could not,reacir a verdict and souyht†o Cre]view T/rorrras video+ared testenrony< Frorn

+ke firs++rèl.The Courtasked A+|+/oner 3 trial counsel

F he had arry objedson to the jury Erdviewiny +ke

vìdeo+arecl +esHmony From +he Firs††rial.Counsel repiled

1y under$+anding /s they ree n+i+/ed to i + IF+hey t»an++osee i+.

Tr|al counse l ti wroncy Ru le L ¼l o oF †H e

u

Florida Rules o f Griminal Procedure yoverns.The Ru le state s ·

AE+er the jurors have re:hred to corr

s cler their verdlct ¡E +key repert

add ì+1ona\ 'mS+ruc€ons or to have any

feç¼mony read †o +hem they sket//be

conduc†eol In†o the cour+roorri l>y †he

o fFicer who ha:s the m in charyepnd+he cour+ rrtay give them †headdi-

+ioned instruc+ions or may order †ke

†e_s+imany read +o+hem, Tke Instruc-

ons shall be glven and +he testimonyread on\y aF+er rrofice to theyroseeu+|acq a++orney areci +o a aan-

se i For +ke de fetidän†.[Emphas s

su pl|ed).THe rule a lows only review of video†¤Ped †es+rriony From the satrie trial in t4/ribÍr the test|-

rnany is sought, tro+ vídeo†aped +e2+1rrrony Frorna Pr>or +rial such as her'e,where video+aped+estimony is sought From a Pr lor +r icd, whichended in a mistrial or hung jury. As was †he F irs+,

12

the second jury had been delib>erating For quitesome +i me , similar +o the F irs†,+he secorid jurycou14 rco† veach 4 verd I c†, cmd as'Ked '.BAETFF.' Arco†herques+(on.

THE COURT .' OKeiy . ØKay. T/ris sdys' requesta repea†vieAnq ,o f †he.video+ared +estimony o F willeThomas(T,68E-L,18-ZÙ.

L+appears tha††he Firs†jury was no+persuøded l>y (Millie Thomas ses¾mony aF†erhavmg the onor+un +y to oh>ser ve m person, hisdemeanor.

The second jur'es reques† For a repeat viewing oF†he videotaped+estimony prior to reach-inq a veçdic+, indicä†es the kriportance. of WillieTk omqs +es†jerrony arid Hre welqW the +estjmanyH ad on tke verafict, Had Willie. Thorries been present

5. Since the First +rlaf¼hereduld have bee n chqMGen Factual +es+imony had he beerrŸresenÊPorcon~Fron†a+ion a++he second tr|al • Ar+. la Sec , /b,F1a .conyt. provWes á rete van+ par+.

zn all cr Irnma i prosecu+1orrs theaccus ed sha11 have +ke r#ht †ocoh-Fron+at frial adverse wi+4esses."

|3

and+es+iFied a++he second trial,+ha+jury as well

would hctve had an opportunI+y +o properly evala-a+ehke fes†intorry under cons†ítutionølconFran+a†iorias d id +he First jury tro+ recrchurg atierd ict . Adrni++ance of Hre VWeotape wi%out ol>jec+1on, shie ided He ksHmony From corrsNfutional+es+ing irr Pron+oFHeyury reqardinc3 events†rar<sp ir ing af†er †he First, l»ut pr ior to thesecond +rlal, olegriàg Pet½ìoner of the cons-†¡htlonal right to eFFective Counsel For hisdefense , as ye il as +he eons+i+ut ionai eiqh++oCoKFron+ones accuser, see Arf.I,Sec•Ib supra.

T He record,File9,frc riscrip†Fails to conclu-s we ly reFu†e Pe†i+/oners c lainr,†ha† his a†+orneywas ineffectiv e For Fail incj to obj e c+ †o+ Heylay inq of the \t ideo†ape tes†imonyof Witi|eThomas from He First tr|al for the jury in+hesecond tría ! )†hereFore, the frial cour†e rred in de ny ing Pe+i+i oner's claira t^iithoutbold iny an eviclen+1ary hear my , anci +he cour+be-lovuerred m Per Curiam AE%rm\nc3 thetr!al Cour+*5 decislor,.rnSo,2d 3ss('rtà.zoozy+g,bcouctyrantedveu|.n,

solve the Íscue oF whether the trár/ Cour+was required+o

hold art eui%enfárry fre:orIncy bctse d upon +ke allecycffIons ib

j>e+I†|oners 1850 motion concern|ny ibeffecNve assib -+ànc e of trla/ counse I •

1/+

Rule5'ilo does not cluHrort'ze viewIng or[re}uIewirty videotaped +estimorgy from another

+r ial sack as Irere . The rule only aHow NreC our++o prov,se%ddi+igat ins+rue+ions or+o have fes+1mony read +o+kejury.

Ar< evider<tiary hearing uvas reqwrect.

I 5

Grourrd wfeti+ionar erqued that frla/counse l was áreFFec+i ve For Failinq to con -duc†a †horouykcross exawrirration of t he s†ate''s

ÞNA expert, Þr, Martirr Tracey .rus+ead o F asKinq +/re one cpuestIon.

[DEFENSE côUgsgg • Þn Tçacey, iÀf be F«Y h sayyou deal in prol>akih%es .[oR.TKACGÜMuch of14hat I do deals with,w th r ro-

habili+Ies and probabl/My distribu+4>ns yes,(DEFENSE CGUNSEÙ| Tkats 4// Hre questious I have,<%50

Counnei should trave mo+Ioned +ke +rial courtFor· rnoney to kere an inderendan+ .sc|en+ ; F ¡a ex -Per+ ny Forens1a science. +o Firs+ oFally p·er-For m mderenk+ pnA +es+incy on hair aueyectlyFound at the crime scene. +o rnaxe o,r, insegen_elan+determinat iore ass to whe+her hair foundn †he caf be foncje& †o Courrse Ib IndEyent chént.

The limited guestioning oF+ke 2+a+es sc Ient|f|eexper+ by deFense Counsel, |n this capitol murder

case., evidepces CounseI# åræb|//ty to eFFec+|vejy

c ross e xamme the w|hress rega,rding the comp>tex-e-S oF ÞM sclence ,Wàs Counsels omäsiotrstrateyk ?

In ford v. SfaQ 776 so- 2d 373Ó'la 5Hr ÞEA 200Ù,>y wr|†+enorder and without an evideritáry kegrthy

t6

+ke †riedcourt surrrrriarily den/ed 4ke rule 3250 triottber,

Tke trial C ourt did not af+ach arrypor tiorr of †/re

t'ecoroQu++he trial Court d id supply I†s reasoníriqFor derry/rtcy +ke nro+íon, L IKe here,+ke M'før p/st-

Nct aFFènred. See Forel,774 so-2d at 37y, LíXehere, ford arcju.ed ++cat his frial C ounse.1 wasineEEerc+/ve For FaWng +o Proper \y cross-excimine et grosecubon witness; /n fhat fe,'er /

c.ouns e / on/y as/(ect one ques+1'on. The try'q/caur+deniedEar_cl pve'thout an evuden†e'ary hecer -

inoy . The FIF+h DMr-1'ct aFNerrred, re /tergfrh

¼€recison/ncy the trh/ Courf gatie For de ny

incy +he motion Here, the Four+k Db+ric † crPFebirr-ed w/thouf quNrorhiq cm op /tt Íon, Thus) thePer Curiarn AFFIr/rject c/ecèlorr red arr thesarrée cfr'ourids as Nrat af the fria/ C our f.

The Four+h Distric tÈ decák:>r errustrcecessar,ty involve a ye.solu†ion aF Fetc+.Courise_{9 otrnHiori pr uci/c e />e †/tjoye p}

N96++o a Fcur tricit. The ÞNA e Wdene.e /rinconc(u5,ve , An e vicien¼ry hearingShouid hcwe beerl ordered c¥nd fHe e-xpert

att DM & shou id ha ga ,cir1severed +he ques+/on,asKaol in"DeFéhdorirts Arrrenduren4 +a Grounc/tvl,'

In adop+ing +ke States response re9erdíny †keinsuffic ie acy oFyround Y a++empteel to be raised by

Pe+l+loner, the +rla i Co ur+ d smissed the ofrounc/w +hout preycGe_eq and oppo/n†ed other Counse f foamend +he claim.

Subsecluent ly, m an amendmen++o c3round '1 , con-F l ic+ counse i spectfled wha+series ¤F cptes+ions

†rial Counse l .should hcme asKeci Dr.Trqcef oncros5 e.xaminat ion ,

Substitute Counse I concluded H s analysis bys+a+Incy

Hyd thesegues%ons' b e en Ínc ladedn de fense counseis c ross e xarn{ nct~lon of Þr, Tretcey, +/re outcome oGhe +riql would havebeen dIFFerent.

Tke amendment'+o cyroutrd 4 FurHrer radicate H7a ptria I CounSe | Wqs jneffeC͇ve.

In Ford u, s+ate, szs sa· 2d 15s (Fla. 2002)+ha

†rial court summarily denied a Rule 3.Z50 mo+ion

and +ke FIF+k Distric+(aFFirnred]. OnconFlict re-

The f efi+i oner FQI/S to ÍNdicaŸe spec ifhq//y what

quesNon tm'o'l counse / Failed to asK. As a resu l+†hepe+l+ioner has Failed to a//ege error and/orprejud ce

/E'

7 &

view,this cour+conclucted tha++he Trial courtwas re-

quired to hold ari eviden&ty hectrÍng ba.sed u†on He allegg-

tions]npe}Éb'oners pro se moWon forpostconv/cNonne I leFconce rnÀ19 t‡neffecHve assisfarrc e oh counse /

Here,+ke R, ure_†o submi†be. Traceys tesfúnon

+o festina in the crucita le oF cross examirrafio nrejudicecI liž+ f oner s case- •

This |neFFec†ive ass/s farre e of C ounse / claúrrstrould have been sef for arr evidentiary hear Ing>no+ rer car latn affehmed.

As jtere,wheN revietvítig a judKinen† oFq Hst-He+ cou †ofAppeal Hrat has Per GariamAFFiewed a trial Cour+s wrl++en opirnon on+he,

rc<eri+s,+kœ Cour† expirtüre9 fhe +nct I Cour+swe¡††en op inion For Itb clec Isiorr in which the

ÞC A inacLvertarr+ly crdopted thr'ough þer CurlantMFirming +he +roat courts wer++en op>meon .

This Court of fasŸresuN, pÍerces through the

vail shielding he FcA en penafr'a†esthe wrí++eg

or Mon +ha†allegedly, e×r ress ly and direct/y con -

1. #et/fíorrer qffecited. ford, supra cd 258.

(emphasis acided)... . Appeal.

/ 9

F He+s wi+u a otecision ofanother Dis†rictCour†oFÅgea I or of this Court on the same questian

oF lawThis p>rocedure is the on13 qpprcach urfjversdty

recognized,as adherInq fo the ctrnount of dueprocess ertvis ion[riql a law +kat hears beFore it

condemas, proceeds ofan inquiry_, ed rendersjudgmentonly aF+er proper considera+/on of assues advance lby adverSørsai parties. In this respec+,+he fermd ue 7rocess'' e mbod ies a Fundarnen+41 concep-+ion oP Fai'rtress tha†der Eve S yHI raately From+he na+ural r I9hts ofaff individuals "

To yrovide due pr·ocess, a judicial sys†em muz†

cmow a litigant an oppor f,uni†yto be heard§ Fore xample‡Accessto covety , Ar tic le I, Se c+ion2z, Flor ida const|+ation. In addition,a lecycQlawful omfwer rnust l>e provided to +he exten++hat

t he li+ìcjant is aware of any shor+comibysr Fore×ømple, whether the liti9a+Ion lac Ks substanceor Is oHrerwise insuffbient, a Court must explén+ke reasoning For the dec Isi'on.

1. A litigant has a conStitutbriel right to petif lon †kegovernment For a redress oF9eIevctaces.In refronse,the 9avernment is oblibatec/ to ¡>ro-vide a lega1, lawful answer to the h½'qq fion.

While this Court triay be confiden++kat our Cir-

cuik and Dis+ric+ Cour†s will endeavor +o ensure+ka† every li+iyants case is care fu//y and promp, irevte.wed, (' PC A > does trof corrobora+e the +heoryèmbrcic ec| by this Court, to the eFFe et t/ret thelower cour+s wiH resolve y case with as snuchcare and dili9ence as due process clicta fe s,

A Courf of last regulf will Hot try to intery&e+

s i le ce so, +bis Court ul+Imate ly uses †hetriost

sens ib le. aFFroac h;+hat È+o Iook Fcis+ s i l en c e†o ¼0 o@ni on oF the. nex†s+q+e. Cour† In thechain --- - †rlaiCour†s wriffenop|nion adoptedl>y †he Four+h Dis†ric†as ifs owir opinion,ccm

be exarnineal by +kis Cour† in an eFFor †to .defermitte wirether the D|str Ict Court silen+dec Mon pe r curiam aFFirrnèrq the trh/ Court''s

wrl††enopin‡on conF//cts w/H1 a p·rinciple oF(aw errutrc lated by arro†/rer ÞIstric†Cour†oroF +His Cour+.

Under fire au+kori+y of Art.K Sec .GXb>GbPla.cons+., †hisCour+ may looK info +1re tri'a/

9· Per Curiarn AFFirm.

Cour+s wr¡Hen opinion adop†ed4 the Fourths†nc†, +o de+errrrine whe+her +ke opinion inS CGS6 15 i ff CotTFlicÝ w‡SG"PÍÑen o im'on

oF +kLs Court or año+ker bis†rIc†Court ofAppeqi,TIns Court acKnowledge 3 that art affirmac e

withou† an opinion ofa tria / Court & a D|strictC ourt is cje neralty deemed 4o be arr approva/ oF+hejudq cne ñ†o F the trial cour+, and be c omes a pre -ceden+, certainly, år the fria/ cour†rerrderiny thepdgment .

Accordinyly, the Dis+r Ic+ Cour+ of Appea/ /secriinen+ly ácorrec+ in aFF/rmbcj the juc/cjrrre n†

oF the †rla / Cour † in so Per as |+ c ould 6 e constrædas troldin9 †kat Pe H+1oner was no†lecjai17 enti-

ed top+a minimurn, aneviden+/ary hearincy.The Flor|cla Suprerne Cour+s aunsd{c+\on is

s+ríc+ly prescribed by the Florldq Corts†¡+u+jon,Art¥,Sec,<(3Xb>Ø>J †ke Florida Dis fric†Cour+s of Arreal were crea+ed not as inter-

meol iate cour†sof appeel but as the end of theroad"For mos+arreals. This court has therole. o fmaintä /mnc) Urt|Forrni+y emd harmany inarre flate C our† de c |3|orts by reso/w>rg cotr

Flic+s wi+h+his Cour+ decisions and conf lic+s

l>e+we erc +he d is†rIc+s .rn a case such as +ki's, †he test ofjuribdic¼on

is Ko+ N keHier this Cour^+ be lieves a dec|sion iirmcorrec+ but whether +He decisIon sou9ht tobe revie w ed c onF l iets w% a decision of this

Cour+or a decEs/an oPa differen†distric+Court of APT®©!·

Per cur lam aFfirm insinua+es,+ka+ where+here.has l>een one reasoned s+qfe _judqmen+ explainingan issue, later utrexp lained orders upholding thatydgmerr† or rejec†iny the same issue. rest up>on†he sarne. decision,

S Ilence Implies consent, no++he oj>posi+e, and Cour+3

cje nerally behave accordiaqly) aff Irm|ncy withoutFurther discussionwhen they agree, not when theydIsagree, witk f/re r easoN <3iverr Á>elow. The es.senceoFunexplained orders is that they say noththy.

(A] presymp+Ion whúk gives to +kem no eFFect -wh|ch

s imr ly looKs through*therrr to +/re /es†recisone ddecision-mos+trearly reFlects †he role +1rey are

ordinar|Iy ihtended to p>/ay .

10, Per Gariam AFfirnrad ,

23

When +ke Þistrict Court ofAppeal affi'rmed†he judcyment made by the Circuif it úr e Ffe e†,pdopted the opirr iore of +ke Circu& court as

it s owrz.Where fhere fras beet7 a clear arid express

state rriert+by +ke circaN court +bat 1'+¼jacl cprierrt was based up-on a specif t'c groanet,

+kene ean be tro doubt Hrat +ke appe flate.courts per curlarrr affirmance was afsa based ryorr+ha† grour1cf,

Under hië streamlbe p roce clure , +ke c lear,nFerence to be drawn Frorrr the appe //4+e Conr f sPE!©cuRIAM aFFirrrrarrce oFthe trla/ Cour+sciec|5Iory ex p> I ¡c Itly based on the 5+ate'sresponse,is that the Court accepted tro f only the

Judcjment but the re azorrirrcy oP+he +rdal court,Age I late couv+'s per curiørn af'F/emane e oF the

+r al cour+s rulincy ege{+\y based on +he s+a+eb

esponse,is a c lear arrd express stateñrent oFS re liarrce. ort an independ e n†op- irdo rL whr'ch doe3

Notþar considerq†jonby +/rt'c Court,The Courf 5 per curtarn aPFirmance wi+hout

cort1tmen+on the lower Court's ru/iny wk|ch ex-reg3fy r'elied on S+ateY respons-e cloes ño†

reqw!-e 4hás Cour4 to sp e c u la te on what bas esthe Cour t dented Pe+/t/oner s c laà7.

Under +hese c ècurnstancem the consi'derg-

+Ion dëcussect is not c ompromised by /ooxág

%rough t/re PCA,to the krsf op inion Hratpro-väed reasons Por the)ucle)me K+, +o determinei fconf/ c†exis+,

In thb case , the +rla/ CourtÀs ruling onPe+i†¡oner's 3,250 rero+|ort pr,ovided the basIs for+ke 5+ate appellate Cour+s per curíam aFPir-manc e. . In +he abssence of someNing in †he recordto indica†ea corrtrary vie w, an «Ffé-mance oPano p inion ofa Cëcuit trial Cour†by a deci -s Ion of fire D istr Ict Court °FApp·ea I mqKe+he_+r i ai coart dec Ision the dece'st'm oP+he

Distric f Cour+. As far as t/re trÉql judge isc oncerned,qttd so Far c75 the bena h and barwho are Fami f iar wit h †ke dechion°F+he+r l a f judge- ar·e c once r ne.d, such facicyrnant5 the law oF +kat jurisdictiorr.

Irt affirrrijng the tria l courVs elecis|on,+ke Fourth bcA perpetrated an mystice. yhich+coa Id no+ exq>Iain ctway in an oparn on of M5 own

2S

An affirraance w|thout[writing]an opinion is an

approval only of †hepoin†decided or resat+ reachedby +ke Court be low, and no†o F †heop in|on and af+ke c.onc lusiorr of /qw [inl+ke +rimi court,.so as+o es+ablisfr a precedent For Future ac†ion

Traditional prac +|ce år de.aling with a cornerionlegal Issue in rrrul+iple cases, bo†k in dis+r ict

Courfs and here, has been †oaufkor [one]or ¡ùonFor a case and surunrarily reFerence +katopinion

on all the other cases[regardiny †hesarne ques+Iono f law ]Nere, the Sta†e of Florida have donejust+ha+, by recpu ir inq +ke Cour†,4f a imn|rnurrr,+oprovide an oppor+ani+y to appear before theCourtand +o be heard when +ke Files and records do no+c onc lus ive [y r e Fu+e the c fairns rnade in +he rno†¡on.

A n exarnina†io n o F +ke record dis-c loses that

†ke†rla i Cour4 te lied upon †he S+q+e~s response,Ugon peviewirry the tr la/ Cour†$ opin|on, thepis+rict Cour† (>er curiarn affirmect, aquiva-

' <'< '>>

lent fo. we find no error.

II - Us/try pe r c ur Ìani affi'rtrreal dec Ís ‡oHs Wi f/7out opÍn|ortas a basis For conf lic+furbdíction has been sharplyres+ricted by the 1780 grrrendtrrett† fo †his Courfb

ur { sd{c+ on . XenK irts v. S+a+e, 38E So.zd J356<Fla. l%0

2_ G

Theconflict is no less real because of †he Fac++hat the Four+h D ¡s+r ic+ appella†e Cour+ Irt +hecase sul>ÿc\ice d ic\ not cA scuss the >oints o F law

involved and simply held) PCA,which in yenercü

+erm:s,†ha++ke+rial Court did no+commí+harmFal error"in i†'s ruling on †ke mq++er in

c{uest io n . This Cour+ is now comnrI++ed to +herr u l a †hei+such a d ispos|†¡onoFa po in+ o F law

arrearincy b fhe record inay consti+ute a decIsional

confI¡c+ sufficient †o itwoKe +be direc†-conFfè†jurisdic†|onoF†hisGourt, fo revÌew l>y Ed Iscre†ion]†he dec is|on on such poitr+s irrade />y a D Es†rEci Gour+of A\>7eo\.

Agaùr, If is conflic+ oFdecÍsion, tro+conf/hf ap

opinion +hat stepp>ly jurisdic†ion For cUscre-+iortary review,

There l's no le9Q{ diff Ínc†Êon befween eFFec+oF per car ‡arrt dec|s ion w/+bout opinion and one+ka+ is suç>p-orted by opinion.

The only prac+Ícql dist|ñc†Éon be tween re-vï em of a per car Iarri de c is íon wIthout ctnopiruorg and one +Hg+ is suppor+ed by anopinjon, is †hc1†ù, the forme r3 +/ny court gocurectl)/ fo the +rict 1 Coud re corc[to cleder -

I2. Nof by Cer&rarifurr'sdictIon as ms souyhtArr||ly7ao,

See JenKárs v. State,325 so,2 d 13SKfia.19eo}.

z-7

rníne proberble jur Esdic+Ion,whereas in†he(a++er case , †hls Cour+ e><amine +ke opin on

which disposes oF +he queshons presen+edFor reviewge,an yhích+He Þ|s+ric+cour+oFArge.cil decision ts based.

Tadgmen+ consf i+u+eS de-C N ioh m \\†Ìgcl†ecctSCS,anc\Of\n{ons mexedy se45 For½ suy-or ncj reaSonS; bu¼ whe-re ½ere v s c4n

op\rüon it becomes per+oE decvston.Tre cW oncdy, ͆ may be †oInfed ou†+hat

a Fehcgric\rn \S ¼6 ormvon oF½e cour+in wh!ch the Mc\ges are c, oFone rninci and4 he question ¡ñvoivea is so elear, tha†if ·is notconside red Necessary †o e laborate i+by ane«+euded di'sc ussion .

IF †hIs Cour+wb/r, it has +/re aufhar i+y †ore H nquish jurisd la+ion +ernporarily to theDcA,†o reconS/der the- cauSe C1Md Pr'e Parean o½nion se ½\n3 Por†h %eory clnd recr

sonincj upon VMch †sjudgment of aPFi'r-rnance wc\S bcde.ch·

we pride ours elves t'n a sys·+ern oFjust ice4kcit rec]uires equaH+y before +ke hw , No pri'-

s oner should be-+reated d/Frere nfly upon the

z2

sarne or sirrn'lar fccc fs . When +ke Fcic†z are thesarrie.,the law should be the same . The †rimarycyoni of †he united States Cons+itution, Amend.xtV, Sec. I , Equal Pi,ofection C lause is to assure

ali persons subjected †oState laws sha// be

+rea†ed aliKeynder f ixe circumstances and

condH¡ons ìn liabilities irngosed.This clause prohibi+5 a State From denytn<y

†o etny person wi'+hin it s jur Isdic†ion theec{ucil grotection oF+he laws,Ar+.1, sec.2Flor|dct Constitution·

This Cour+,and all +he o+ker bistr icts ci9ree,

¼a+ an e vå:lettflary hear inc) Inus†b e he- lci u nder †hese.+ o f Fac.+s prese a ed .

A s poin†edout in +he s+aternen†oF case and

f'ac†À Iu I 27, 2of2 ci o+|on for Rehearin Re -cpestèq Wr/Hen Opibt'ort were F//ed . Cler/<®o FCour+ en†ered in†o+1re record a document not ac-Knowledged by a judi'clot l oFF ic ‡al IndIca+In9 +k¤+

August 2¥+k, zolz the motion was denteol.

ü , Tbe docurrrenf is rrot ctc)(nowledqed by a clepufy

k a+ by ne princ|pa I . I+ /s Inc luded in the appen-

dix.

27

In Yowry v. s+ate,¼b So. ad 1049 &ta,app.Wk DGA 199Ô, app e //enf CYff ea led arr orderdenpng his rute umo nrotion -i+hou+an eváte n-+iary hearinq . Because the order did no†havereeord att,ac/rtrien+s eonc las|ve13 r-eFu+/nq

cy>pettarr+s c¥//egation,s, the Four+k D|stric†ge versegi cynd rernanded "The State concedeeferror .

rè+/+6ners Four th contentson oF heFFectíveness,wa:s that,counsel Fall to eFFec+1vely aross-examine

+lre S†afes exper+, professor Martin Tracey, a

spec alist in population yerretic.s. At tría/,counselonly asK ect one questiorr.15Y MR. DL/5AN <

G· Dr. Tracey, i†dbe Fa|r to sayyoudeal in

prahabili+‡esA. Much oFw/rat zdo deal with,wi+k pro-

abili+|es anci probabl//fy distributions,yes.MR. ÞnGAN :

T17atÈ g/l the CJuestIoas I frave (T,50t., L W-19)

Irr ½Ís case , Iristead of do Inq fhe sarne, †ke+4 DCA Pcntke trial Courts opineon. /Anderlor|da laú0+his is error.

30

The tri'al Courfs ,order resolved Pe_+|+Èoner I il>y àdap+my 2+a+es Respon3e, f ;my iny +µele9ally insuFFic ient,distnissed +ke c}aim wi+

3ud{ ce cand appohrted a ,Spe c áy/ fab/,'o Defender+o cemend +he clarm. .See (EK-B').

S absecluerrt +o unre erding 9round i y, y7,1 ourcido P+e d State s Kesparrse findirry the cluestionsalorre,howeverfai/ to estab//s/1 prejud/ce•Sùrce i+ ¿s

unKrrowir brow Dr- Tracey would añswer Hre quest,'onIn re1+eratérq +/re trk/Cour·t fqN to in-

clude a copy of fire Ft'/e arrd records føra+conclusively strouv Mref f/7e prisoner is enti-

†led to tro re /Ze F as mærdated by FlorÍ qRu leg a F Cri crit tral Procedur€ 3 850 (d>' S ee

d supra,

la.R.App.R 9jy/cz><b),on appecr/Prom Hredenial ofrelief;unless Hre f·ecord shows corr-a f u:s ava Iy †hat+17e appef(arrt ib en+<'tled +or e I le F,+,he order strati be re veesed for ar,evioletr+1ary /1ear|rry or otfrer appr·ope,|ate

e fte F,

3I

G0NCLUSION

For t he Forecjoby reasons, Pe+i+ioner requests

+he Cour†grant dècre+ionary review over +kiscase or,discipprove the Four+h Dis†ric†''sPér cela m A FF ir rnanc e.,

Re p>ec+Fu\\y subml++ed.

sz

CERTIFICATE OF SERV1CE

WE HERE BY CERTIF)' Mrat a true Qnd cor -rec†copy oF+he ForecjoI»cj has />een sen+Via U,2, Ma// 'b__ day af Ct+ch€r fol2†o

oEEhe_oEA±±nc y zne£$ IM52illacykr DJul±L30û

dole5±_foJ_m_BecLcb L 3Ho L