Florida Supreme Court affirms denial of Scottie Allen's postconviction claims
On Thursday, as part of its regular release of opinions, the Court issued a per curiam opinion affirming the circuit court’s order summarily denying Allen's initial postconviction motion.
On Thursday, as part of the Florida Supreme Court’s regular release of opinions, the Court issued a per curiam opinion affirming the circuit court’s order summarily denying his initial motion for postconviction relief and the circuit court’s order denying his request for public records. The Court also denied Allen’s separate petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Scottie Allen was sentenced to death for murdering his cellmate, Ryan Mason, on October 2, 2017, at Wakulla Correctional Institution. He represented himself at both the guilt and penalty phases of trial. At the penalty phase, he waived the presentation of mitigation. The jury unanimously recommended death.
On direct appeal, the Court affirmed Allen’s conviction and death sentence. His sentence became final on January 24, 2022.
“On May 2, 2022, Allen filed a demand for additional public records from DOC. Among other things, Allen requested: (a) classification files for nine current or former inmates; and (b) “[r]eports or data recorded in the Security Threat Group Operational Review Management System relating to the Bloods and Latin Kings during the time period of 2003-2017.” DOC objected. The circuit court denied his requests.
On January 21, 2023, Allen filed his 3.851 motion, raising 14 claims:
(1) Allen was denied his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing when the trial court ordered that his family not be contacted regarding potential mitigation evidence; (2) Allen was denied his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing when JAC ran out of funding for criminal conflict cases; (3) Allen was denied his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing when the trial court failed to continue the Spencer hearing; (4) Allen was denied his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing when the trial court failed to call its own mitigation witnesses at the Spencer hearing; (5) his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing when the trial court failed to ensure that a comprehensive PSI was completed; (6) the State violated Allen’s due process rights by presenting a State-authored PSI that the State knew, or should have known, was inaccurate; (7) Allen’s due process right not to be sentenced based on materially inaccurate information was violated; (8) Allen was denied his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing when the trial court failed to consider all mitigating circumstances submitted by special counsel; (9) Allen’s due process rights were violated when the trial court allowed him to continue to represent himself after he equivocated; (10) Allen’s right to due process was violated when the trial court found him competent to proceed with self-representation in spite of ample evidence that he suffers from PTSD, which made him incompetent to present a proper defense; (11) Allen’s right to due process was violated when he was permitted to represent himself in spite of record evidence that he was seeking to be sentenced to death; (12) Allen’s waiver of counsel was not voluntary, as he was operating under the undue influence of another; (13) Allen’s right to due process was violated when the prosecutor misstated the law during jury selection thereby creating a structural error in Allen’s trial; and (14) cumulative procedural and substantive errors deprived Allen of a fundamentally fair trial.
The circuit court denied his motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Allen raised 12 issues. “In his first seven 3.851 claims, Allen argues that certain failures by the trial court and actions by the State deprived him of the individualized sentencing required by Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), or otherwise violated his due process rights.” Next, “Allen argues that his right to due process was violated when the trial court found him competent to proceed with self-representation despite ‘ample evidence’ that he suffers from PTSD. He asserts that under Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), he should not have been allowed to represent himself.” Relatedly, he also argues that “his right to due process was violated when he was permitted to represent himself despite record evidence that he was seeking to be sentenced to death.”
Further, “Allen argues that because he was purportedly operating under the undue influence of inmate Williams, Allen’s waiver of counsel was not voluntary.”
According to Allen, during a June 2018 interview with FDLE agents, Williams explained that he “exercises control” over Allen and another inmate, that Williams concocted a plan whereby he, Allen, and the other inmate would murder child molesters, and that Williams ‘wanted them to go to death row together.’ Allen does not allege that Williams ever told Allen to waive counsel.
Next, “Allen argues that, during jury selection, the prosecutor committed ‘structural error’ by using a skydiving analogy that, in Allen’s words, ‘explain[ed] that if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, the jury needed to vote for death.’”
The Court denied each of Allen’s claims in turn, either as procedurally barred, time-barred, or on the merits. As to Allen’s cumulative error claim, the Court said: “Allen’s claims are all procedurally barred and without merit. Accordingly, Allen is not entitled to relief.”
On Allen’s claim related to the circuit court’s denial of public records, the Court determined that “the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s request.'“
Therefore, the Court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings on appeal.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
In his petition for habeas corpus, Allen raised 6 claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Court determined that “[e]ach claim fails,” specifically becuase “Allen’s claims all involve meritless issues or unpreserved issues that are not ‘meritorious claims of fundamental error.’”
The full opinion can be downloaded here.
It appears to me that Petitioner has a mental defense that went undeveloped. Were there mental test data in the record? IQ issues? Autism?
This case reeks of insufficient trial preparation. I am not familiar with FL criminal justice law, so on this short presentation, there's going to be more Qs than As.