Commentary: This appears to be a frivolous claim for post-conviction relief from an inmate who has been on death row for nearly 30 years.
Ultimately, after several evidentiary hearings, the postconviction court denied relief on all of Lambrix’s claims. On appeal, Lambrix raises five issues: (1) whether the State withheld material exculpatory or impeachment evidence involving a sexual relationship between witness Frances Smith and State Attorney Investigator Robert Daniels in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (2) whether an important witness (Deborah Hanzel) recanted her trial testimony; (3) whether the circuit court failed to allow a full and fair hearing; (4) whether there was judicial bias during the retrial proceedings; and (5) whether Lambrix is entitled to a new trial because he is actually innocent (We reject without discussion Lambrix’s claim that he is entitled to relitigate whether he is innocent of the crime based on Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). Lambrix mischaracterizes the holding of Schlup, which does not provide a freestanding claim to relitigate claims that are procedurally barred.)
Alleged Sexual Relationship: We conclude that there is no basis in the record to reject the trial court’s factual finding that no sexual encounter occurred between Smith and Daniels. However, even if the circuit court had accepted the testimony that a one-time sexual encounter had occurred, we would conclude that Lambrix cannot show prejudice, which is the third critical prong of a Brady claim. To meet the requirements of Brady, Lambrix must show that (1) favorable evidence—either exculpatory or impeaching, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced. To meet the materiality prong, the defendant must demonstrate ―a reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different had the suppressed information been used at trial. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome.
An affair between the State’s key witness and the state attorney investigator would be considered favorable evidence. However, Lambrix cannot demonstrate prejudice—that this suppressed evidence was sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
Alleged Recantation of Deborah Hanzel: In his second claim, Lambrix asserts that the postconviction court erred in failing to find that witness Deborah Hanzel recanted and that Smith and a state agent coerced her to lie. This claim is based on the newly discovered evidence of Hanzel’s recent testimony. To set aside a conviction based on newly discovered evidence, Lambrix must meet two prongs: (1) the ―asserted facts must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence; and (2) ―the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
As this Court has noted repeatedly, recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. When reviewing a trial court’s determination relating to the credibility of a recantation, this Court is highly deferential to the trial court and will affirm the lower court’s determination so long as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Having reviewed the full record and the postconviction court’s findings, we conclude that there is competent, substantial evidence for the court’s ruling.
Further, even if Hanzel had not testified at trial that Lambrix stated he killed two people, the recantation would not be of such a nature that it would ―probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Hanzel never recanted her testimony that Lambrix offered to show her where two bodies were buried. Even without Hanzel’s testimony, there would still be the testimony of Branch that he heard Lambrix make statements similar to those to which Hanzel testified.
Moreover, Hanzel was not the main witness to testify against Lambrix. Even without her testimony, there would still be the testimony of Lambrix himself at this most recent evidentiary hearing that he struck one of the victims using a tire iron, although he denied that he intended to kill either victim. Further, there was other significant evidence at the trial that pointed to Lambrix as the perpetrator of these murders. This evidence included the following: Smith’s testimony regarding the murders and that Lambrix threatened her if she did not help him bury the bodies; Deputy Sheriff Ron Council’s testimony that he saw Lambrix and Smith with the victims on the night of the murders; John Chezum’s testimony that on February 6 around 2:30 in the morning, Lambrix drove up in a car that resembled the victims’ car and asked to borrow a shovel; and the victims were found buried near the trailer in which Lambrix was living. For the reasons above, Lambrix is not entitled to relief on this claim.
Whether Lambrix Was Given a Full and Fair Hearing: In his third claim, Lambrix asserts that the postconviction court prevented Lambrix from presenting various witnesses who would have supported Hanzel’s recantation, thus denying him a full and fair evidentiary hearing. None of the general testimony of the expert witnesses or the lay witnesses would have been relevant to either the Brady or newly discovered evidence claims in this case. Accordingly, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit this testimony, we deny this claim.
Alleged Judicial Bias: The fourth and last issue we address is Lambrix’s claim that newly discovered evidence established that his trial judge was biased. He based this claim on statements Judge Stanley made during a January 1997 evidentiary hearing in another death penalty case, which involved defendant Raleigh Porter. In that case, Judge Stanley overrode the jury’s recommendation of life and imposed a death sentence.
In Porter, we never held that the trial judge was unable to be impartial in all capital cases, but held only that Judge Stanley lacked the necessary impartiality as to the sentencing phase of Porter’s trial. Porter, 723 So. 2d at 198-99. This case does not involve a judicial override of a life recommendation or any statements attributable to Judge Stanley indicating a predisposition to sentence Lambrix to death. This Court has recognized that judicial misconduct in one case does not mean that courts must presume misconduct in all cases. Accordingly, we deny this claim and hold that Lambrix is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Lambrix’s successive motion for postconviction relief.
No comments:
Post a Comment