635 So. 2d 4 - Deaton v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]o establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that, because of that deficient performance, the defendant was prejudiced. Generally, prejudice is established by a finding that, but for the ineffective assistance of counsel, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different, or that, as a result of the ineffective assistance the proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair. In this case, the trial judge found that Deaton had waived the right to testify and the right to call witnesses to present evidence in mitigation, but concluded that, because his counsel failed to adequately investigate mitigation, Deaton's waiver of those rights was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The rights to testify and to call witnesses are fundamental rights under our state and federal constitutions. Although we have held that a trial court need not necessarily conduct a Faretta type inquiry in determining the validity of any waiver of those rights to present mitigating evidence, clearly, the record must support a finding that such a waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. See, e.g., Henry v. State, 613 So.2d 429 (Fla.1992).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henry v. State · State v. Lewis

2. “At the evidentiary hearing, the following colloquy took place between Deaton's postconviction counsel ["Q"] and Deaton's trial counsel ["A"]: Q. In terms of preparing for trial in advance of conviction, what did you do to prepare for the penalty phase? A. Very little. I usually don't try to prepare the penalty phase in advance of the verdict, so for some reason I just don't like to get psyched up and get a defeated attitude. I usually don't prepare until I lose [the conviction phase], then I started scrambling for something to do about the penalty phase. .... Q. In terms of the penalty phase, did you explain to [Deaton] mitigating circumstances that you could pursue? A. No, except he could testify as to his treatment and how he was emotionally abused as a child. Just very briefly, if he wanted to testify. .... Q. Now in terms of documentation, records such as the hospital reports or divorce records or any of those H.R.S. files, did you talk to Jason about finding those records in order to try to introduce them at the penalty phase? A. No. Q. Were you aware that documents such as that may be admissible even if it's hearsay at the penalty phase? A. Yes. Q. Was there any reason why you didn't try and locate any of those documents prior to trial? A. No, no reason. .... Q. Now, do you recall how much time you had spent between the return of the guilty verdict and the start of the penalty phase? A. Very little time. Q. Was it like overnight? A. I think overnight or the next day, co”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lewis · Sochor v. State

3. “no evidence whatsoever was presented to the jury ... even though evidence presented at the rule 3. 850 evidentiary hearing established that a number of mitigating circumstances existed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sochor v. State