From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ponticelli v. Baynard

Supreme Court of Florida
Nov 10, 2010
49 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2010)

Opinion

Case Nos. SC09-992.

November 10, 2010.

Lower Tribunal No(s). 87-2719 CF-A-W.


Anthony John Ponticelli, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court's order denying his successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The order was issued following an evidentiary hearing on Ponticelli's claims. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)( 1), Fla. Const.

Ponticelli's current appeal asserts that he was denied a fair trial because Dennis Freeman, a jailhouse informant, testified that he did not expect to receive a benefit for his testimony. Ponticelli also asserts that the State knew Freeman testified falsely. Therefore, Ponticelli asserts he was prejudiced and requests relief under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). This Court rejected an almost identical claim in Ponticelli's initial postconviction appeal. See Ponticelli v. State, 941 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2006). We have considered the additional evidence presented as to this issue at the evidentiary hearing in the form of letters and testimony, and we conclude that, for the same reasons explained in our previous opinion, Ponticelli has failed to meet the prejudice prong under Brady or the materiality prong under Giglio. See id. at 1089.

Ponticelli also asserts that Freeman's testimony should have been excluded on the grounds that he was acting as an agent of the State. This Court rejected a similar claim in Ponticelli's initial postconviction appeal. Id. at 1105-06. We have considered the additional evidence presented as to this issue at the evidentiary hearing in the form of letters and testimony, and we conclude that, for the same reasons explained in our previous opinion, Ponticelli has failed to show that Freeman was acting as a State agent. See id.

Ponticelli further asserts that Warren Brown has admitted that he testified falsely at trial when he stated that he did not see Ponticelli smoke cocaine and when he did not reveal that he was similarly intoxicated. Ponticelli claims that the State knew the testimony was false and that he was prejudiced.

This Court rejected an almost identical claim as to witnesses Brian Burgess and Ed Brown in the initial postconviction appeal. See id. at 1091-92. We have considered the evidence presented at the successive evidentiary hearing and conclude, similar to our view in the initial appeal, that even with this additional evidence, neither prejudice or materiality is established. Id.

Ponticelli also claims that the trial judge erred in refusing to disqualify himself from presiding over Ponticelli's successive postconviction proceeding. Because we find Ponticelli's motions for recusal legally insufficient, we hold that the postconviction judge did not err in denying them.

Ponticelli additionally asserts that the trial judge erred by denying some of his claims as untimely, that he was denied a right to a full and fair hearing, and that his conviction and death sentences are rendered unreliable in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We find these claims without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Ponticelli's successive motion for postconviction relief.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ponticelli v. Baynard

Supreme Court of Florida
Nov 10, 2010
49 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2010)
Case details for

Ponticelli v. Baynard

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY JOHN PONTICELLI, Appellant(s) v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee(s)

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Nov 10, 2010

Citations

49 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2010)

Citing Cases

Ponticelli v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

The court stated that, “for the same reasons explained in our previous opinion, Ponticelli has failed to meet…