Butler v. State
100 So. 3d 638, 2012 WL 2848844 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of penalty phase counsel, a defendant must demonstrate not only that counsel's performance was deficient, but also that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different, which is not met when unpresented mitigating evidence is largely cumulative and is far outweighed by a single, particularly weighty aggravating circumstance.
Facts:
- Harry Butler and the victim, Leslie Fleming, were former romantic partners who shared a six-year-old daughter.
- Several days before the murder, Butler moved out of the apartment he shared with Fleming after their relationship ended.
- Butler was reportedly upset about the breakup and Fleming's relationship with another man.
- The day before the murder, Butler told his coworker, Terry Jackson, that he was going to 'kill Bay [Fleming] and Red [Fleming's best friend].'
- On the night of March 13 or early morning of March 14, 1997, Fleming was stabbed 45 times, beaten, and asphyxiated in her apartment.
- The couple's daughter, who was in the apartment, told police, 'My daddy hurt mommy. I heard him yelling at her.'
- A neighbor, Lola Young, testified she saw Butler hiding in the bushes near Fleming's apartment around the time of the murder.
- Sneakers belonging to Butler were found in a dumpster near the crime scene with DNA evidence consistent with Fleming's blood on them.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Lee Butler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida (trial court).
- Butler appealed his conviction and sentence to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Butler filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence (a rule 3.851 motion) in the circuit court, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The circuit court (postconviction court) held evidentiary hearings and entered an order denying relief.
- Butler appealed the denial of his postconviction motion to the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does trial counsel's failure to investigate and present available mitigating evidence regarding the defendant's troubled childhood, intellectual deficits, and substance abuse constitute ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced the outcome of the penalty phase?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Trial counsel's performance during the penalty phase did not prejudice the outcome to the extent required by Strickland. To assess prejudice, the court must reweigh the aggravating evidence against the totality of available mitigating evidence. Here, the single aggravating circumstance—that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC)—was exceptionally weighty, given the brutal and prolonged nature of the assault. The additional mitigating evidence presented during postconviction proceedings, which detailed Butler's impoverished childhood, intellectual deficits, and substance abuse, was found to be largely cumulative of evidence already presented in a 'summary fashion' at trial. The court concluded that there is no reasonable probability that this additional evidence would have changed the jury's recommendation or the judge's sentence, as the HAC aggravator 'far eclipses' the available mitigation. Therefore, confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase was not undermined.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Labarga, J.
Yes. Trial counsel's failure to investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence constituted ineffective assistance that prejudiced the outcome of the penalty phase. Counsel's performance was deficient because they failed to subpoena crucial witnesses, presented two unprepared and unhelpful witnesses, and made an unreasonable strategic choice to proceed with a weak case. The dissent strenuously disagrees that the postconviction mitigating evidence was merely cumulative, arguing that the jury was deprived of the 'tragic details' of Butler's violent upbringing, the extent of his substance abuse, and his cognitive defects. In a single-aggravator case, this substantial, unpresented mitigation would not have been 'insubstantial' and creates a reasonable probability of a different outcome, thus undermining confidence in the death sentence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for proving prejudice under the Strickland standard, particularly in capital cases with a weighty aggravating factor like the murder being especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). The court's holding demonstrates that even significant, unpresented mitigating evidence may be deemed insufficient to establish prejudice if it is considered cumulative or is vastly outweighed by the brutality of the crime. This 'reweighing' analysis makes it difficult for defendants to succeed on penalty-phase ineffective assistance claims when the facts of the murder are particularly gruesome. The ruling sets a precedent where the sheer weight of a single, severe aggravator can effectively nullify the potential impact of substantial mitigating evidence, thereby narrowing the path for relief in similar future cases.
