Puiatti v. State
This text of 939 So. 2d 1060 (Puiatti v. State) 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
CARL PUIATTI, Appellant(s)
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee(s).
Supreme Court of Florida.
This case is before the Court on a successive motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the trial court's order.
Puiatti first asserts a retroactive change in the law governing claims of ineffective assistance of penalty phase counsel. We reject his argument that Rompilla v. Beard, 125 S.Ct. 2456 (2005), and Wiggins v. Smith, 529 U.S. 510 (2003), are retroactive under the criteria of Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980). Rompilla and Wiggins merely applied the test for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Fla. 1984), to the facts of each case. Thus, neither Rompilla nor Wiggins are changes in the law as contemplated by Witt.
Puattii next asserts that mental health evidence discovered during postconviction proceedings demonstrates that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. Whether viewed as a renewed claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase or as a claim of newly discovered evidence, this claim is barred in successive postconviction proceedings.
Therefore, the order denying Puiatti's successive motion for postconviction relief is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.
QUINCE, J., recused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
939 So. 2d 1060, 2006 WL 2673266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puiatti-v-state-fla-2006.