Atkins v. Singletary
This text of 622 So. 2d 951 (Atkins v. Singletary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Phillip Alexander ATKINS, Petitioner,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, etc., Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
*952 Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, and Martin J. McClain, Chief Asst. CCR, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Phillip Alexander Atkins, an inmate under sentence of death, petitions this Court for extraordinary relief and writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
The facts of the case and procedural history are recited in the prior cases brought by Atkins in Florida and federal courts. Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952 (11th Cir.1992) (affirming denial of habeas); Atkins v. Dugger, 541 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1989) (denial of 3.850 motion); Atkins v. State, 497 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 1986) (appeal after remand); Atkins v. State, 452 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1984) (initial direct appeal).
Atkins now complains that he is entitled to relief on two more issues: (1) that he was denied his constitutional rights when a new jury was not impaneled during his penalty phase on remand from his initial direct appeal; and (2) that he was denied his constitutional rights when this Court denied his request for time to investigate and obtain a proffer of allegedly exculpatory evidence purportedly discovered immediately prior to oral argument.
We find both of these issues barred because they either were or should have been raised in Atkins' earlier appeals and petitions; and we find the second claim additionally barred because the matters raised by Atkins could not possibly have altered the outcome of the trial. Moreover, we find nothing in recent federal cases cited by Atkins that would lift the bar. See Espinosa v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992); Sochor v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992); Stringer v. Black, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992). Accordingly, the present petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
622 So. 2d 951, 1993 WL 176648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-singletary-fla-1993.