Jose Fuentes v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Was counsel's failure to subpoena an important witness considered ineffective assistance of trial counsel?
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: => ~~ So, . Question one of ground one of Fuentes §2254 petition: Relevancy is everything when it comes to evidence, and the Petitioner’s private psychologist, Dr. Garcia testimony at his insanity defense trial in which | Fuentes was founded to be insane at the time of the incident by the defense’s | assigned psychologist, Dr. Homes, was essential, however, defense counsel failed to “+ subpoena Dr: Garcia at the time he subpoenaed Fuentes’s medical records from Dr. ° Garcia. Was Counsel’s failure to subpoena such an important witness when he had the chance to do so be considered ineffective assistance of trial counsel? II Question two of ground two of Fuentes’s § 2254 petition: Here we have a needed witness who gave a deposition that supported Fuentes’s insanity at the time of the incident, and also gave excellent character testimony of Fuentes including Fuentes not being an overtly jealous guy, which was | the State’s main accusation against Fuentes. Was counsel’s decision of not calling Fuentes’ next door, Ms. Lorenza Cunningham after hearing her very beneficial | testimony during deposition be considered ineffective assistance of trial counsel? , Question three of ground three of Fuentes’ § 2254 petition: | Here we have another one of Fuentes’ neighbors who gave a sworn statement , to the police stating among other things that he saw Fuentes walking towards his home holding a Catholic candle, which was evidence that was tied to Fuentes insanity on the day of the incident. Was counsel’s failure to call JoeManny Castro knowing of his beneficial evidence testimony considered ineffective assistance of trial counsel? IV Question four of ground four of Fuentes § 2254 petition: A prospective juror complained to the Court’s bailiff outside the courtroom of not wanting to be a juror because she didn’t speak English, and when the Judge found out from the bailiff of Mrs. Rodriguez English situation, the Judge determined that Mrs. Rodriguez could speak and understand English. However, the Judge never actually talked to Mrs. Rodriguez about her complaint of not knowing how to speak English. Was the Court’s failure to hold a hearing to make sure that Mrs. Rodriguez knew enough English to be able to serve an abuse of discretion, or do you agree with the postconviction Court’s reasoning that the trial court has very wide discretion when it comes to voir dire matters? TT _ , Question five of ground five of Fuentes’ § 2254 petition: / ; cls + as. 3. Was the prosecutor’s decision to. use. Fuentes’ (15) fifteen year old son to = Ss identify the bodies of his own mother and grandmother, the victims, which caused : Fuentes to have to sign a stipulation that would keep his son from having to see pictures of his dead mother and grandmother in exchange for defense counsel not : cross-examining or raising any objection during the testimony of the State’s expert, which hurt his case. Was this a reasonable thing to do by the prosecutor? VI Question six of ground six of Fuentes § 2254 petition: ae . It was established early on during pretrial hearings by all parties that competency had nothing to do with Fuentes’ sanity, and the State even asked the Court for a Motion in Limine to make sure that competency would be kept out of the trial. However, when the prosecutor saw a small window from Fuentes’ competency examination that accused him of faking his mental illness, the prosecutor called a side bar with all the parties to inform them that she was going to ask the witness, Dr. Homes, about Fuentes’ competency examinations answer, but that she was not going to use the word competency during the questioning and although defense counsel objected, the Judge granted the State permission to ask the competency related question. Was the trial court bias in letting the State introduce competency matters in Fuentes’ insanity defense trial? VI : Question seven of ground seven of Fuentes’ § 2254 petition: The defense in Fuentes’ tr