Clark v. Attorney General, State of FL, No. 14-15022 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a state prisoner convicted of murder and sentenced to death, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 based on the ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial, the sentencing court's failure to consider mitigating evidence, and the State's violation of his due process rights by suppressing material impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The district court denied relief and the court affirmed. The court concluded that, although petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not procedurally barred, it fails on the merits because counsel's performance was not unreasonable where, among other things, counsel reasonably determined that the mitigating evidence could cut both ways and thus could have harmed his client as much as it could have helped him. Furthermore, petitioner is unable to establish prejudice. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider mitigating evidence because the sentencing document made no express reference to the reports counsel had submitted detailing petitioner's childhood and addiction issues. Addressing petitioner's Brady claim on the merits, the court found that, in the absence of evidence, the prosecution did not suppress any Brady material. Finally, petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Brady claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.