WPC ^n.2*o} ૿H<4w#P `%,@dCN݁M6DuZ3˃ jˆyݩPҮ]7kAֲFG\.ہ RV@trI͹k4jm:`&3)T4xf#Gjda"4O98"\/0bJe;U,jFBZ r;T4-";t \zl3{rJ߯-eG"6-4@g W\5Z-Uv˕wȞ8jݳOs]\+Rw! @J6LFӦ6uu&*=1x6y~j^KQ7vgv"EY 5rLpΜ#U N % 0:UC87^ ow{4 mfYI 0"~" 0"D_#/#f%a8&L+V-N;/=/U003 1f?8f8 0 9'9f;X<JBf>CxCEHKfN'OR 1T 1uCU UUFY ZU.b 0cb'c"e 0w6e"e \e`+fk*o0ru=x{l~_?"""ه"# 72))))))))))) B[[[[[[[[[[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHP LaserJet 4100 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z+ Courier New , NU,*-10B3|xU  ($USUS.,    11    _XuXXXForthis,thepercuriampluralityopinioncites Swafford,  679So.2dat739.There,apercuriamopinionjoinedby Kogan,   C.J.,andOverton,Shaw,andGrimes,JJ.,stated, Wereject  SwaffordsBradyclaimbecause,aswerecognizedinSwaffords  firstmotionforpostconvictionrelief,theStatewasnot \ requiredtoprovidetodefensecounseleverypieceofinformation 2 regardingothersuspects.However,aspeciallyconcurring X opinionbyJusticeAnstead,joinedbyKogan,C.J.,andShaw,J., . stated, Ialsoconcurintheremandforanevidentiaryhearing   ontheBradyclaimandtheallegationsofnewlydiscovered   evidenceonthisissue.Swafford,679So.2dat741.Thus,two `  ofthefourjusticeswhojoinedthepercuriamopinionagreed 6   withJusticeAnsteadsstatementthattheCourtwasremandingfor  \  anevidentiaryhearingontheBradyclaim.Moreover,this  2  CourtssubsequentdecisioninLightbournev.State,742So.2d   238(Fla.1999),clearlyestablishedthatnewevidenceinsupport   ofapreviouslyrejectedBradyclaimrequiresreconsiderationof d  thepreviouslyrejectedclaiminlightofthenewevidence. \\R3'Letter\ ($USUS.,    4    _XuXXXThereportspecificallyindicated thatonceagainMR.LEVI  shouldbeinterviewed. ? ($USUS.,    3    _XuXXXThepolicereportswerediscloseddaysbeforeMr.Swafford  wasobligatedtofileallstatecourtchallengestothevalidity  ofhisconvictionandsentenceofdeathinanticipationofhis \ thenscheduledexecution.Thedisclosurewasnotmadepursuant 2 toanyBradyobligation;thedisclosureoccurredpursuanttoa X publicrecordsrequest.  ($USUS.,    1    _XuXXXThisCourtsopinionissuedtwoyears,sevenmonths,and16  daysaftertheoralargument.Thepluralityopinionaffirmedthe  circuitcourtsdeterminationthatcollateralcounseldidnot \ exerciseduediligenceinfindingMichaelLestzaftertheState 2 disclosedhisnameinOctoberof1990,fiveyearsafterMr. X Swaffordstrial,eightyearsaftertheStateinitially . investigatedLestzandhistravelingcompanions(JamesMichael   WalshandWalterLevi).CollateralcounsellocatedMr.Lestzin   Aprilof1994(fourmonthsafterMr.Lestzfiledforbankruptcy). `  Accordingtothecircuitcourt,thiswasoneyearandsixmonths 6   toolate.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   % ($USUS.,    2    _XuXXXSincethreejusticesdissented,JusticeLewiswasthe  necessaryfourthvote,andthusthedecidingvoteinthecase.  Asaresult,thepercuriamopinionannouncingtheaffirmancewas \ notamajorityopinion.Itwasapluralityopinionreflecting 2 thereasoningofonlythethreejusticeswhowereshownas X concurring. \\R3'Letter\ W ($USUS.,    9    _\@R3'Letter\XuXXXWheretheStateofFloridaextendsaright,therightmay  onlybeextinguishedinamannerthatcomportswithdueprocess.  ThiswasexplainedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinEvitts \ v.Lucey,469U.S.387(1985).There,theCourtnotedthatthe 2 Stateswerenotrequiredtoprovidearighttoadirectappealof X acriminalconviction.However,wheretherightwasnonetheless . extended,dueprocessprotectionattached:   ` Therighttoappealwouldbeuniqueamongstateactions `  ifitcouldbewithdrawnwithoutconsiderationof 6   applicabledueprocessnorms.Forinstance,althougha  \  Statemaychosewhetheritwillinstituteanygiven  2  welfareprogram,itmustoperatewhateverprogramsit   doesestablishsubjecttotheprotectionsoftheDue   ProcessClause. 6  d  ` Evitts,469U.S.at40001. B ($USUS.,    12    _XuXXXInhisInitialBrief,Mr.SwaffordstatedinArgumentI,   Asaresult,theStatecannotrelyuponthisCourtsdecisionin  1990aserectingsomekindofproceduralbarprecluding \ considerationofthemeritsofMr.Swaffordsconstitutional 2 claimwhenitdidnotrevealthehighlyrelevantevidenceuntil X February7,1997.IBat42. L ($USUS.,    5    _XuXXXAgain,therewasnoindicationthatthedisclosurewas  pursuanttoanyBradyobligation.Thedisclosureoccurredin  responsetoapublicrecordsrequest.  ($USUS.,    10    _XuXXXTheSupremeCourtconcludedthatthemeritsofColemans  claimwouldnotbeheard [b]ecauseColemanhadnorightto  counseltopursuehisappealinstatehabeas...Coleman,501 \ U.S.at757.<\( 9Z+Courier  ) ($USUS.,    6    _XuXXXInterestingly,underCalifornialaw,collateralcounsel  mustobtaincourtpermissiontoobtainfundstoinvestigate.  Unlesscounselhassufficienttriggeringfactstojustifyan \ expenditureofresources,thecourtwillnotapprovethe 2 expenditureoffundstoconducttheinvestigation.Fundingis X notavailablefor investigation...groundedonmere . speculationorhunch,withoutanybasisintriggeringfact,and   nodecisionofwhichweareawarehasrecognizedorimposedsuch   anunfocusedandbroadduty.InreGallego,959P.2d290,298 `  n.10(Cal.1998). Itisnottheintentofthecourtto 6   authorizeorfundfishingexpeditionswhosepurposeissolely  \  todiscoverifanybasisforacollateralattackona  2  presumptivelyvalidjudgmentcanbefound.InreClark,855   P.2d729,751n.19.(Cal.1993).InMr.Swaffordscase,   collateralcounselwasprovidedwithpublicrecordsand d  specificallyadvisedthatwitnessesidentifiedintherecordshad :  beenthoroughlyinvestigatedandpossessednoexculpatory `  information.SeeStricklerv.Greene,119S.Ct.1936,195051 6 (1999)( Merespeculationthatsomeexculpatorymaterialmayhave   beenwithheldisunlikelytoestablishgoodcauseforadiscovery  requestoncollateralreview). \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\6K 24Heading 1          ($USUS.,    15    _XuXXXClearlyChiefJusticeKoganandJusticeShawwhoboth  joinedthisopiniondidnotreadthispassageasconclusively  findingMr.SwaffordsBradytobewithoutmerit;theyboth \ joinedJusticeAnsteadsstatementthatheunderstoodthatthe 2 remandwastopermit anevidentiaryhearingontheBradyclaim. \\R3'Letter\  ($USUS.,    14    _XuXXXThelanguageinthepercuriampluralityopinion(thatthe  claimhadbeenaddressedanddeniedonthemeritsin1996)isnot  premiseduponanargumentthatwasadvancedbytheState.Inits \ AnswerBrief,theStatedidnotarguethatMr.Swaffords 2 argumentregardingthe1997disclosureshadalreadybeen X addressed.Instead,theStateargued, therecordwellsupports . the1990representationthatMr.Walshandcompanywere   thoroughlyinvestigatedanddiscardedassuspects.ABat60.   c TheStatejustifiedthefailuretoconductthefollowup  investigationdiscussedintheJanuary31,1983,policereport,  bystating, TheStatesubmitsthatthebeliefthatathird \ interviewofMr.Leviwaswarrantedmayreasonablyhavechanged 2 asaresultoftheevidencesubsequentlyreceivedwhich X identifiedthemurderweaponandconclusivelylinkedSwaffordto . it.ABat60,n.33.Thus,theStatesargumentthatCaptain   Burnsedstestimonywasnotexculpatorywaspremiseduponthe   StatescontentionthatMr.Swaffordwasguilty. !USUS.,  _XcXXX_Hewitt_Ԁv.Helms,    459U.S.460(1983)#XXXXc=# \\R3'Letter\ n ($USUS.,    16    _XuXXXAtissueinMr.SwaffordscaseiswhethertheStates  failuretodiscloseMichaelLestzsnameandhisstatements  implicatingWalshintheBrendaRuckerhomicideviolatedBrady.  ($USUS.,    17    _XuXXXHere,thatmeanstheanalysismustconsiderwhattrial  counselwouldhavelearnedfromLestzhadtheStatedisclosed  Lestzsnameandhisstatementstothedefense.ThisCourt \ understoodthisinitsdecisioninLightbournev.State,742 2 So.2d238(Fla.1999).There,anevidentiaryhearingwasordered X onMr.LightbournesBradyclaiminordertoevaluatethe . testimonyofaparticularwitnessthathadnotbeendisclosedby    theState.  ($USUS.,    18    _XuXXXWhenthe1996percuriamopinionmadereferencetowhether  theStatewasobligatedtodisclose everypieceofinformation  regardingothersuspects,theStatehadaffirmatively \ representedthatWalsh,LestzandLevi hadbeenthoroughly 2 investigatedanddiscardedassuspects.Again,itwasrevealed X in1997thatthisthoroughinvestigationneveroccurred.Walsh . wasnoteliminatedasasuspectuntiltheStatedecidedSwafford   wasamoreconvenientsuspect.AnswerBriefat60,n.33.  ($USUS.,    20    _XuXXXThepercuriampluralityopiniondidrecognizethatMr.  Swaffordsargumentwasthat thecircuiterredinrefusingto  admitortakejudicialnoticeofreportsastothestaffingand \ fundingoftheofficethatwasthenknownastheCapital 2 CollateralRepresentative.SlipOp.at22.Thepercuriam X pluralityopinionalsoacknowledgedthatMr.Swaffordalleged . thatthesereports wouldhavebeenrelevanttotheissueofdue   diligence.SlipOp.at22.Thus,theevidencethatMr.   Swaffordsoughttohaveconsideredandhisreasonsweremade `  knowntothecircuitcourtandareclearfromtherecord. \\R3'Letter\  ($USUS.,    21    _XuXXXTheStateinitsAnswerBriefdidnotarguethatMr.  Swaffordfailedtomakeacontemporaneousobjectionandthus  failedtopreservethisissue.Instead,theStatearguedthat \ thecircuitcourtsdecisiontoexcludetheevidencewasnot 2 error: Swaffordhasfailedtoestablishthatthecircuitcourt X judgeabusedhisdiscretionindecidingnottotakejudicial . noticeoftheOvertonCommissionReportortheShevin   Report.AnswerBriefat37.  ($USUS.,    22    _XuXXXThedecisioninSpaldingissuedovertwoyearsbeforeMr.  SwaffordsdeathwarrantwassignedandCCRbegantoprovidehim  withcollateralrepresentation.AtthetimethatMr.Swafford \ acceptedCCRsrepresentation,hehadbeenpromisedbythisCourt 2 thathehadarighttoeffectiverepresentationfromCCR. X Surely,hehadarighttoassumethatthisCourthadmeantwhat . itsaidinSpalding. 5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)  ($USUS.,    8    _.XuXXXOnlyafterCaptainBurnseds1997testimonydidtheState  suggestthatthereinterviewofWalterLevididnothappen asa  resultoftheevidencesubsequentlyreceivedwhichidentifiedthe \ murderweaponandconclusivelylinkedSwaffordtoit.ABat60, 2 n.33.0XuXX.XuOfcourse,RoySwaffordsnamedidnotsurfaceuntilJune X of1983whenRogerHarpercontactedVolusiaCountyauthorities . indicatingthathemayhaveinformationregardingtheRucker   homicide.#.XuXX0Xu#ԀUpuntil1997,collateralcounselwasledtobelieve   thatinvestigationoccurredinthatfivemonthgapthateliminate `   Walsh,LestzandLeviasbeinginvolvedinthehomicide.<Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular  ($USUS.,    7    _.XuXXXTheneedforfurtherinvestigation,includingare  interviewofWalterLevi,wasnotedinaJanuary31,1983,police  reportsummarizingtheJanuary25,1983,interviewofMichael \ Lestz.0XuXX.XuOnJanuary25,1983,MichaelLestzrevealedthatat6:00 2 a.m.onFebruary14,1982,JamesMichaelWalshleftMr.Lestzat X alaundromatapproximatelyoneblockawayfromtheFinaStation . atwhichMs.Ruckerhadjustarrivedatwork.OnJanuary25,   1983,Mr.Lestzrevealedthatat6:00a.m.themorningof   February14th,Mr.WalshleftthelaundromatinMr.Lestzs `  vehicletogofindsomedrugsjustfifteenminutesbeforeMs. 6   RuckerwastakenfromtheFinaStationaccompaniedbyamanwhose  \  compositedrawing strongly_ԀresembledMr.Walsh.(PCR4T.546).  2  Atthattime,Mr.LestzfurtherstatedthatMr.Walshdidnot   returnuntilafter10:30a.m.andthenheappeared [p]retty   nervous,sweaty.Hewasreal_hyper.___Ԁ(PCR4T.65).OnJanuary d  25,1983,Mr.LestzindicatedthatafterMr.Walshgotbackhe :  wasanxioustodisposeofseveralguns,specificallyincluding `  two.38's.OnJanuary25th,itwasknownthata.38hadmostly 6 likelybeenthemurderweapon.Mr.LestzsJanuary25th   statementwas verysimilartowhatWalterLevihadalready  statedandwasthuscorroboratedbyanotherwitness.8 C ׀(PCR4T. h 558).#.XuXX0Xu|#ԀThus,thepolicenotedonJanuary31stthatMr.Levi >  shouldbereinterviewed.<6X9`(Courier(;3$2#  0  .3  0    ($USUS.,    27    _XuXXXTheSupremeCourtconcludedthatthemeritsofColemans  claimneednotbeaddressedbecausevolunteercounselmisseda  filingdeadlineand [b]ecauseColemanhadnorighttocounselto \ pursuehisappealinstatehabeas...Coleman,501U.S.at 2 757.     (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#     "Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983)1 V ($USUS.,    24    _.XuXXX @  @ Rule3.851(b)(3),Fla.R.Crim.Pro.,effectiveonJanuary  1,1994,providedinpertinentpart:  ` Thetimelimitationinsubdivision(b)(1)is 2 establishedwiththeunderstandingthateachdeath X penaltyprisonerwillhavecounselassignedand . availabletobeginaddressingtheprisoners   postconvictionissueswithin30daysafterthejudgment   andsentencebecomefinal. `  ` &ThisCourtscommentarytotheruleexplained:  \  ` Thecommitteewascreatedbecauseoftheinabilityof   thecapitalcollateralrepresentativetoproperly   representalldeathpenaltyinmatesinpostconviction d  reliefcasesandbecauseoftheresultingsubstantial :  delaysinthosecases.Thatcommitteerecognizedthat, `  tomaketheprocessworkproperly,eachdeathrow 6 prisonershouldhavecounselavailabletorepresenthim   orherinpostconvictionreliefproceedings.  ($USUS.,    25    _.XuXXX @  @ InArbelaezv.Butterworth,738So.2d326,327(Fla.1999),  JusticeAnsteadquotedthefollowinglanguagefromthe1991  ReportoftheSupremeCourtCommitteeonPostconvictionReliefin \ CapitalCases: 2 ` Thecapitalcollateralrepresentativeis,bylaw, . responsibleforrepresentingthesedefendants.This   committeerecognizesthatthecapitalcollateral   representativeneedsadditionalstaffandfundsin `  ordertohandlehiscurrentcaseload. 6   f Ї` Arbelaez,738So.2dat327n.3(Anstead,J.,specially  concurring).  ($USUS.,    26    _.XuXXXTheStatearguedinitsAnswerBrief, thealleged  understaffingandunderfundingofCCRwasnotrelevanttothe  issueofduediligenceofcollateralcounsel.ABat66.The \ Statemaintained, itisclearthatregardlessofanycommentsin 2 theOvertonCommissionReportortheShevinReportrelatingto X CCRsgeneralstaffingandfundingcondition,ithadadequate . personnelandfundingtoproperlyinvestigateSwaffordscase   duringtherelevanttimeperiod.ABat67. u ($USUS.,    23    _.XuXXXCertainly,theStatehasneverconcededinthiscasethat  CCRwasunderfundedandinadequatelystaffedduringits  representationofMr.Swafford.InitsAnswerBriefbeforethis \ Court,theStateasserted, fundingandstaffinginSwaffords 2 casedidnotpreventSwaffordscollateralcounselfrom X exercisingduediligenceinregardtolocatingandinterviewing . Mr.Lestz.ABat68.Ofcourse,theStatemadethisassertion   aftersucceedinginexcludingtheevidencethatsupportedMr.   Swaffordsargumentfromtherecordconsideredbythecircuit `  court.  ($USUS.,    19    _.XuXXXTherealityisthattheStatehadrepresentedin1990that  Walsh,LestzandLeviweredeadleadsthatwerediscardedaftera  thoroughinvestigation.TotheextentthatthisCourtrelied \ upontheStatesrepresentationindecidingthattherewasno 2 obligationtodisclose,themattermustberevisitedinlightof X the1997revelationthatthe furtherinvestigationdidnot . occur.  ($USUS.,    29    _.XuXXXTrialcounselhadtapedaninterviewwithVernonJameswho  admittedbeingpresentforthemurderandindicatedthatMr.  Melendezwasnotpresent.Trialcounseldidnotusethetapeat \ trialafterVernonJamesinvokedtheFifthAmendmentandrefused 2 totestify.Trialcounselbelievedthatthecircuitcourtwould X precludethetapeonhearsaygrounds.However,theexistenceof . thetranscriptconfirmedthetestimonyofanattorney,Dwight   Wells,ina1996proceedingthatVernonJameshadconfessedthe   crimetohim.Thecircuitcourtin1996rejectedthetestimony `  aslackingcredibilitybecausetherewasnocorroboration.  ($USUS.,    31    _.XuXXXGiventhatthepercuriampluralityopiniondoesnot  contestthecontentionsetforthbythedissentthatLestzs  testimonywhenconsideredcumulatively wouldprobablyproducean \ acquittalattrial(SlipOpat39),Mr.Swaffordmaybean 2 innocentman,whowasdiligentinpursuingpostconviction X remedies.Howeverunderthepluralityopinion,thecircuitcourt . judgesdecisionisapparentlynotreviewable,eventhoughhemay   bewrong. b ($USUS.,    30    _.XuXXXAsnotedabove,thepercuriampluralityopinionindicates  thatthecircuitcourthasdiscretionindecidingwhatevidence  ispermittedtobeintroducedandthuspartoftherecord. U ($USUS.,    33    _.XuXXXInAllenv.Butterworth,756So.2d52,54(Fla.2000),this  CourtstruckdowntheDeathPenaltyReformActas  unconstitutional.Inthecourseofdoingso,thisCourtnoted, \  [t]hesuccessivemotionstandardoftheDPRAprohibitsotherwise 2 meritoriousclaimsfrombeingraisedinviolationofdue X process.Thepercuriampluralityopinioninitsanalysis . violatesthisprinciple.ItfailstoconsiderthatMr.Swafford   waspromisedeffectiverepresentationandthathereliedupon   thatpromise.Itdoesnotanalyzehisdiligencefromhispoint `  ofviewbasedupontheinformationavailabletohim.Itaccepts 6   thecircuitcourtsconclusionthatbecausetherewashelpful  \  evidenceoutthereandhefailedtofindit,hewasnotdiligent.       ($USUS.,    32    _.XuXXXInFurmanv.Georgia,408U.S.238(1972),theUnited  StatesSupremeCourtheldthatstandardlessdiscretioncouldnot  beemployedincapitalcases.Here,thepluralityconcludesthat \ thecircuitcourtnotonlyhaddiscretiontodecidewhatevidence 2 toconsider,butitalsohaddiscretiontodecidewhat X constituteddiligence.Thepluralityemployednolegalstandards .  initsanalysisofthecircuitcourtsdecision.Asaresult,  Furmanwasviolated.            ($USUS.,    28    _.XuXXXAccordingtothecircuitcourt,Mr.Swaffordhadtwoyears  toinvestigatethethousandpagesofdocumentsdisclosedbythe  StateinOctoberof1990.However,Floridalawprovides, [a] \ prosecutionforacapitalfelony,orafelonythatresultedina 2 deathmaybecommencedatanytime.XuXX.XuFla.Stat.#.XuXXXu#775.15.Thusin X acapitalcase,theStatehasimposeduponitselfnostatuteof . limitationsininvestigatingahomicideandcommencinga   prosecution,buthasimposeduponaninnocentdeathsentenced   defendantatwoyearlimitationforinvestigatinginformation `  containedinpublicrecordsdisclosures.       ($USUS.,    13    _.XuXXXAstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasstated, adefendant  cannotconductthereasonableanddiligentinvestigation...  whentheevidenceisinthehandsoftheState.Stricklerv. \ Greene,119S.Ct.at1951.Further, ifaprosecutorasserts 2 thathecomplieswithBradythroughanopenfilepolicy,defense X counselmayreasonablyrelyonthatfiletocontainallmaterials . theStateisconstitutionallyobligatedtodiscloseunderBrady.   Id.At1949n.23.,i) d Fla.R.App.Procuriamaffirmanceconcur[ringRuckerf]urther ExhGallegoStrickler S.Ctlaundromat Finap]rettyVolusiaDuggerEvittsLucey ha[db]ecauseKoganIBMR t]he postconvictionnondisclosureLightbourneEhrhardtOvertonShevin VLRCButterworth CrimArbelaezunderstaffingunderfundingMelendezSteinhorstw]henreviewablestandardlessFurmanMeinhard DPRASouterSpazianoHerreraMCCLAINTompkinsSeabreezeBurnsedAnsteadLestz CCRStinnettSwafford CCRC  u!   @ 80IXXdd8  _Ԁ  4  OnAugust30,1982,Mr.Levitoldlawenforcementthatat  approximately6:00a.m.onFebruary14,1982,Mr._Lestz_ԀarrivedatthemotelroomwhereMr.LevihadspentthenightwithMr.Walsh.Mr.WalshthendepartedwithMr._Lestz_Ԁsayingthatthepairhad"somethingtodo."(Def._Exh_.7).Mr.LevisaidthathedidnotseeMr.WalshandMr._Lestz_Ԁagainuntilbetween11:00a.m.andnoon. !USUS.,  _ XuXXX 8.u.XXdd8  #   ( 3*5*@*E*D*H*@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA    CASENO.SC92,173    ROYCLIFTONSWAFFORD, N    ` Appellant,  f vs.  . STATEOFFLORIDA,       ` Appellee.  n  ________________________/ R  XXu      XuX& a       Ԍ̌  XuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXu  XXu      #Ԟ#XuX6  APPELLANTSMOTIONFORREHEARING 6  lԌ   Ќ  XuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXuXuXXXu  'a(#XhXXXu@#XuXXXh  COMESNOW,AppellantROYCLIFTONSWAFFORD,byandthrough  hisundersignedcounsel,pursuanttoFloridaRuleofAppellate K Procedure9.370,andmovesthisCourttograntrehearinginthe G abovestyledcause.Throughcounsel,Mr.Swaffordstatesthe  followinggroundsinsupportofhisrequest:#XhXXXu##dXXh#XhXd O   XuXXXh1. ` OnApril18,2002,thisCourtrendereditsdecision K affirmingthecircuitcourtsdenialofpostconvictionrelief. #  1      ׀  Thismotionforrehearingistimelyfiled.Fla.R.App.Pro. S 9.370(a).#XhXXXu ##dXXh #XhXd  O  XuXXXh  2. ` InthepublishedopiniondenyingMr.Swaffordsappeal, ""    TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter8.u.XXdd3'LetterT    threejusticesofthisCourtjoinedinthepercuriamopinion  announcingtheaffirmanceofthedenialofRule3.850relief. \ JusticeLewiswasshownas concur[ring]inresultonly. #  2      ׀This X Courtinrenderingitsdecisionoverlookedormisapprehended   certainmatters.#XhXXXu ##dXXh #XhXd `  XuXXXh  3. ` AtMr.Swaffords1985trial,theStatedidnot  \  disclosethenamesofJamesMichaelWalsh,WalterLevi,and   MichaelLestz,oranyofthepolicereportsconcerningthe d  investigationoftheminconnectionwiththeBrendaRucker `  homicide.Thenamesandthepolicereportswerewithheldfrom   Mr.SwaffordandhiscounseluntilOctoberof1990,fiveyears h afterthetrialandovereightyearsaftertheinvestigationof d thesethreeindividualswaslaunched. #  3      ׀Thelastofthepolice  reportswasdatedJanuary31,1983,andindicatedthat [f]urther l investigationistofollow.(Def.Exh5at4).`  #  4      ׀Whenthese h reportswerefinallydisclosedinOctoberof1990,theState  advisedMr.Swafford,hiscounsel,andthecircuitcourtthat \  JamesMichaelWalsh,WalterLeviandMichaelLestzwere X thoroughlyinvestigatedanddiscardedassuspects.(States   Responsedated10/22/90at17).Thus,theStateaffirmatively `  representedtocollateralcounselandtothecircuitcourtthat  \  thesenamesweredeadendleads.Collateralcounselwasgivenno   indicationthatthewitnessespossessedanyexculpatory d  evidence. #  5      ׀Infact,tothecontrary,collateralcounselwas `  advisedthattheStatehadruntheleaddown,andithadcometo   adeadend. #  6      #XXu#XuX h  TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter8.u.XXdd3'Letter8.u.XXddT     4. ` Onlyaftercollateralcounselhad,nonetheless,tracked  MichaelLestzdown,obtainedanaffidavitandconvincedthis \ Courttoorderanevidentiaryhearing,wasitrevealedin1997 X thatthe [f]urtherinvestigation[thatwas]tofollownever   occurred._/ #  7      ׀OnFebruary7,1997,CaptainBurnsedtestifiedthat `  thefollowupinterviewofLeviwhichthepolicereportsaid  \   shouldoccurneverhappened.- #  8      ׀DeputyBurnseds1997testimony   revealedthattheStatesrepresentationsin1990werecertainly  misleading,ifnotfalse. \   5. ` Mr.Swaffordscollateralcounselthroughoutthe X historyofhispostconvictionlitigationwascounselprovidedby   theStateofFloridapursuanttoFla.Stat.27.702.InSpalding `  v.Dugger,526So.2d71,72(Fla.1988),thisCourtstated:  \  ` Werecognizethat,undersection27.702,eachdefendant   undersentenceofdeathisentitled,asastatutory   right,toeffectivelegalrepresentationbythecapital d  collateralrepresentativeinallcollateralrelief :  proceedings.Thisstatutoryrightwasestablishedto `  alleviateproblemsinobtainingcounseltorepresent 6 Floridasdeathsentencedprisonersincollateral   reliefproceedings.  `   Thus,Mr.SwaffordwasnotonlyprovidedcounselbytheStateof > Florida,buthewasalsoprovidedwiththeright toeffective : legalrepresentationbyhiscollateralcounsel.f #  9      ׀Thisisunlike  thecircumstancesofColemanv.Thompson,501U.S.722(1991),  wherecollateralcounselslackofdiligencewasattributedto \ thecapitaldefendantandthusprecludedconsiderationofthe X meritsofprocedurallybarredclaims.InColeman,theStateof   Virginia ha[d]noresponsibilitytoensurethatthepetitioner `  wasrepresentedbycompetentcounsel.501U.S.at754. #  10        \    6. ` Incircuitcourt,Mr.Swaffordsoughttorelyuponthe   StatesfailuretoadequatelyfundCCRandinsurethatMr. d  Swaffordreceivedhisstatecreatedrighttoeffectivecollateral `  counsel.TheStateobjectedtotheprofferedevidencesaying,    thereisnorighttoeffectivepostconvictionorcollateral h counsel.(PCR4T.486).ThecircuitcourtsustainedtheStates d objectionandrefusedtoconsidertheevidence.    7. ` Thepercuriampluralityopinionissuedinsupportof l thisCourtsdecisionaffirmingthedenialofMr.SwaffordsRule h 3.850motionindicatedthatthefirsttwoargumentsinMr.  SwaffordsInitialBrief areprocedurallybarredbecausethis p  allegationwaspreviouslyraisedinSwaffordsappealofthe !l" denialofhisthirdrule3.850motionandfoundtobewithout "$ merit.SlipOp.At21.  #  11      ׀However,ArgumentIofMr.Swaffords t$& InitialBriefwaspremiseduponthetestimonypresentedon  February7,1997. #  12      ׀ThiswassevenmonthsafterthisCourts \ decisionremandingforanevidentiaryhearing.Thus,thisCourt X couldnothaveconsideredtheevidencesupportingArgumentIin   its1996decision. `    8. ` ArgumentIwaspremiseduponthetestimonyofCaptain  \  Burnsedregardingtheinvestigationthatwastofollow,according   toaJanuary31,1983,policereportauthoredbyCaptainBurnsed, d  whichincludedthenotation thatonceagainMR.LEVIshouldbe `  interviewed.OnFebruary7,1997,CaptainBurnsedrevealedthat   thefollowupinvestigationandtheinterviewofWalterLevi h neveroccurred.ThisdirectlycontradictedtheStates d representationinOctoberof1990followingthedisclosureofthe  January31stpolicereport.OnOctober22,1990,theState \ asserted, JamesMichaelWalsh,WalterLevi,andMichaelLestz X werethoroughlyinvestigatedanddiscardedassuspects.   (Responsedated10/22/90at17).TheStatemadethisassertion `  insupportofitscontentionthattheJanuary31,1983,police  \  reportwasadeadleadthatwasnotexculpatoryinnatureandnot   withinthescopeofBrady.Thus,theStatefalselyassertedto d  thisCourtthattheJanuary31stpolicereportwasadeadlead `  andthereforenotBradymaterial.TheStatewithheldthetruth   fromMr.SwafforduntilFebruary7,1997,twelveyearsafterMr. h Swaffordwasconvictedandsentencedtodeath.I #  13       d   9. ` ThisCourtoverlookedthebasisofArgumentIandthe  factthatitwaspremiseduponadisclosuremadebytheStatein l 1997,andthusnotconsideredbythisCourtin1996.!@ #  14      ׀This h   TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter8.u.XXdd3'Letter8.u.XXddT   Courthasalreadyheldinanothercasethat [t]heStatecannot  failtofurnishrelevantinformationandthenarguethatthe \ claimneednotbeheardonitsmeritsbecauseofanasserted X proceduraldefaultthatwascausedbytheStatesfailureto   act.Venturav.State,673So.2d479(Fla.1996).Similarlyin `  Statev.Parker,721So.2d1147(Fla.1998),Mr.Parker,a  \  capitaldefendant,waspermittedtoraiseaBradyclaimtenyears   afterhistrialandfouryearsafterthedenialofhisfirstRule d  3.850motion,becauseduringacodefendantsresentencing `  proceedingtestimonyrevealedforthefirsttimecertain   exculpatoryevidenceastoMr.Parker. h   10. ` Thestatementinthepercuriampluralityopinionis d inconsistentwiththisCourtswellestablishedjurisprudence.  TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasexplainedthatinorderfora l proceduralbartobevalid,itmustbepremisedupona firmly h establishedandregularlyfollowedstatepractice.Jamesv.  Kentucky,466U.S.341,348(1984);Fordv.Georgia,498U.S. p  411,42324.Theapplicationofaproceduralbarpremisedupon !l" resjudicatatoprecludetheconsiderationofArgumentIofthe "$ #  #TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter8.u.XXdd3'Letter8.u.XXddT #  InitialBriefisinvalid.ThisCourthasnotregularlyand  consistentlyconsideredevidenceofaBradyviolationbeforeit \ hasbeendisclosedtothedefense,andtherefore,hasnot X subsequentlyappliedaresjudicatabartoprecludeconsideration   oftheevidenceoncedisclosureoccurred. `    11. ` AstoArgumentIIoftheInitialBrief,thepercuriam  \  pluralityopinionsrelianceuponthe1996percuriamopinion   overlookedthefactthattwoofthefourjusticeswhojoinedthe d  1996percuriamopinionalsojoinedJusticeAnsteadsconcurrence `  inwhichheexplainedhisunderstandingoftheholdingofthe   1996percuriam: Ialsoconcurintheremandforanevidentiary h hearingontheBradyclaimandtheallegationsofnewly d discoveredevidenceonthisissue.Swafford,679So.2dat741  (Anstead,J.,speciallyconcurring). l   12. ` Thepercuriampluralityopinionalsooverlookedthe h implicationsofStricklerv.Greene,119S.Ct.1936,1948(1999),  whenitfocuseduponthefollowingpassageinthe1996opinion: p  ` WerejectSwaffordsBradyclaimbecause,aswe !l" recognizedinSwaffordsfirstmotionfor !B# postconvictionrelief, theStatewasnotrequiredto "$ providetodefensecounseleverypieceofinformation #% regardingothersuspects .Swafford,569So.2dat1267. $& TheintroductionofLestzsstatementdoesnotalter t% ' thatconclusion.However,Lestzsstatementplaces J&!( WalshattheShingleShackwitha.38caliberhandgun  'p") atornearthetimethatthemurderweaponwas 'F#* discoveredinthatlocale.Wefindthisevidence,when ($+ viewedinconjunctionwiththeevidenceallegedin )$, Swaffordsprior3.850motionandtheconflicting x*%- evidencepresentedinSwaffordsoriginaltrialwith N+&. regardtoexactlywherewithinthebarthegunwas $,t'/    TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter  undersentenceofdeathisentitled,asastatu3'Letter8.u.XXddT    found,issufficienttowarrantanevidentiaryhearing  ontheissueofwhetherthestatementisofsucha  naturethatitwouldprobablyproduceanacquittalon \ retrial. 2 ` DDSwafford,679So.2dat739(emphasisadded). #  15      ׀Totheextentthat . thepluralityopinionhasconcludedthatthe1996opinionfound   thatMr.SwaffordsBradyclaimhadnomerit,sucha 6   determinationiserroneousunderStrickler.There,theSupreme  2  Courtexplained:   ` Thustheterm Bradyviolationissometimesusedto :  refertoanybreachofthebroadobligationtodisclose `  exculpatoryevidence!thatis,toanysuppressionof 6 socalled Bradymaterial!although,strictly   speaking,thereisneverareal Bradyviolation  unlessthenondisclosurewassoseriousthatthereisa h reasonableprobabilitythatthesuppressedevidence > wouldhaveproducedadifferentverdict. d ` LLStrickler,119S.Ct.1948.$ #  16      ׀Thus,whetherBradyhasbeen  violatedrequiresconsiderationofalloftheevidencethatthe l nondisclosurewouldhaveleddefensecounseltouncover.%  #  17      ׀ h (  (TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter  undersentenceofdeathisentitled,asastatu3'Letter  undersentenceofdeathisentitled,asastatuT (  ResolutionofaBradyclaimdoesnotturnonwhetheraprosecutor  isobligatedtodisclose everypieceofinformationregarding \ othersuspects.&f #  18      ׀Theobligationtodiscloseisdependentupon X whetherthe pieceofinformationregardingothersuspectsis   exculpatory,andifsowhetherthenondisclosureundermines `  confidenceintheoutcomeofthetrial.AstheStricklerCourt  \  said,   ` Rather,thequestioniswhether thefavorableevidence d  couldreasonablybetakentoputthewholecaseinsuch :  adifferentlightastoundermineconfidenceinthe `  verdict. 6 ` UUStrickler,119S.Ct.at1952.Ifthe1996percuriamdecidedMr.  SwaffordsBradyclaimwithoutconsideringwhatLestzhadtosay, > thatdecisionwasclearlyinerrorunderStrickler.;  #  19      ׀Theper : curiampluralityopinionoverlookedtheholdinginStrickler.    13. ` AstoArgumentIIIoftheInitialBrief,thepercuriam B pluralityopinionstated:  ` Wefindthatthisclaimwasnotpreservedforappellate \ reviewbecausecounseldidnotlodgeacontemporaneous 2 objectionduringtheproceedingbelow.Evenifthis X claimwerepreserved,wefindnoabuseofdiscretionby . thecircuitcourt.   ` XXSlipOp.At22.' #  20      ׀First,thepercuriampluralityopinion `  overlookedtherecordinthiscasewhenitstated counseldid  \  notlodgeacontemporaneousobjection.TheissueraisedbyMr.   SwaffordconcernedtheexclusionofevidencethatMr.Swafford d  soughttopresentandhaveconsideredbythecircuitcourt. `  Section90.104(1)oftheEvidenceCodeprovides:   ` (1)Acourtmaypredicateerror,setasideorreversea h judgment,orgrantanewtrialonthebasisofadmitted > orexcludedevidencewhenasubstantialrightofthe d partyisadverselyaffectedand: : (a)Whentherulingisoneadmittingevidence,atimely  objectionormotiontostrikeappearsontherecord, l statingthespecificgroundofobjectionifthe B specificgroundwasnotapparentfromthecontext;or h (b) Whentherulingisoneexcludingevidence,the  substanceoftheevidencewasmadeknowntothecourt  byofferofprooforwasapparentfromthecontext   withinwhichthequestionswereasked . p ! ` ~\\SincetheissueraisedbyMr.Swaffordconcernedtheexclusionof *"z# evidence,theEvidenceCodedoesnotrequirethepartyseeking  theadmissionofevidencetoobjectafterthecourthassustained \ anobjectionfromtheopposingparty.SeeEhrhardt,Florida X Evidence104.3(1998).     14. ` Mr.Swafforddidproffertheevidencethathesoughtto `  havethejudgeconsider.Thatwasallthatwasrequiredunder  \  theEvidenceCodetopreserveerrorregardingthecircuitcourts   refusaltoadmittheevidenceforappellatereview.Theper d  curiampluralityopinionoverlookedtherecordandtheEvidence `  Codewhenindicatingthattheexclusionoftheevidencewasnot   preservedbecauseofafailuretolodgeacontemporaneous h objection.) #  21       d   15. ` Astothepercuriampluralityopinionsstatementthat  itfound noabuseofdiscretionbythecircuitcourt,the l pluralityoverlookedacapitaldefendantsdueprocessrightto h presentrelevantevidenceinsupportofhisclaim.Here,Mr.  Swaffordhadbeengiventhestatutoryrighttoeffective p   representationincollateralproceedings.Spaldingv.Dugger, !l" 3* 3  3  526So.2dat72.* #  22      ׀Yet,Mr.Swaffordwasprecludedfrom   presentingthereportsmandatedbythisCourt#XXuC#XuXԀdiscussingCCRs \ abilitytoprovidetheeffectiverepresentationthatwasrequired X bythelaw.Incircuitcourt,theStatesargumentagainst   considerationofthesereportswasthat thereisnorightto `  effectivepostconvictionorcollateralcounsel.(PCR4T.486).  \  Certainly,thereisnoindicationfromthecircuitcourtthatit   acceptedthatMr.Swaffordhadarighttoeffectiveassistanceof d  collateralcounselandthattheagencyobligatedtoprovidethe `  representationwasinadequatelystaffedandunderfunded.:j #  23         ! ! +(5h03,  16. ` Recently,thisCourtdiscussedthereportsthatMr. h Swaffordsoughttopresenttothecircuitcourt,explainingthe d historybehindthepreparationofthereportsanddiscussing  theirconclusions: l 5* 5  5  `  InOctober1990,thisCourtcreatedtheSupreme  CourtCommitteeonPostconvictionReliefProceedingsto  consideranumberofmatters, includinghowtoprovide \ properrepresentation andtimelyresolutionforall @ postconvictionreliefmatterspendinginthisCourt. $t InMarch1991,theCommitteerecommendedthat J postconvictioncounselbedesignatedineachcase   withinthirtydaysofmandateissuingfromthisCourt   orcertioraribeingdeniedbytheUnitedStatesSupreme |  Courtand thatuntiladditionalfundingandstaffcould R   beprovidedtotheofficeoftheCapitalCollateral 6   Representative (CCR),theCourtseekprobono j  assistancefromtheVolunteerLawyersResourceCenter N  (VLRC)andmembersoftheFloridaBar.In1994,the $  CourtadoptednewFloridaRuleofCriminalProcedure   3.851,whichreducedtooneyearthetimeperiodfor   filingpostconvictionmotionsincapitalcases.Inthe V  commentarytotherule,theCourtreasonedthatthe ,| reductionofthetimeperiodforfilingamotionfora R capitalprisonerasdistinguishedfromanoncapital ( prisonerwasjustifiedbecause [a]capitalprisoner  willhavecounselimmediatelyavailabletorepresent  himorherinapostconvictionreliefproceeding,while v counselisnotprovidedorconstitutionallyrequired Z fornoncapitaldefendantstowhomthetwoyearperiod > applies. InreRuleofCriminalProcedure3.851,626 "r So.2d198,199(Fla.1993).AttherequestofGovernor V LawtonChiles,theSupremeCourtCommitteeon , PostconvictionReliefProceedingswasreconstitutedin  1994andchargedwithreviewingtheeffectivenessof  rule3.851,evaluatinghowtheCommittees ^ recommendationshadbeenimplemented,andimproving 4 administrativecoordinationwiththefederalcourts.  Z  `  #  30      ׀  \  Apparently,thepluralityagreesthattherecordcontains   evidencethatwouldindicatethatcollateralcounselwas d  diligent.= #  31      ׀However,thepluralitydoesnotarticulatewhatthe `  standardfordiligenceis,letalonereviewwhetherthecircuit   courtproperlyunderstoodandappliedthestandard.Asaresult, h thepluralityopinionprovidesthecircuitcourtwith d standardlessdiscretionindeterminingwhethertoupholdMr.  Swaffordsdeathsentence.A  #  32       l E* E  E    20. ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,whenpresentedwitha  casethatinvolvedafindingbyalowercourtthatcollateral \ counselhadnotbeendiligent,madeitclearthattheissueof X diligencewasaquestionoflaw:   ` TheCourtofAppealsheldstatehabeascounselwasnot `  diligentbecausepetitionersinvestigatoronfederal 6   habeasdiscoveredtherelationshipsuponinterviewing  \  twojurorswhoreferredinpassingtoStinnettas  2   BonnieMeinhard.SeeBriefforPetitionerat35.   TheinvestigatorlaterconfirmedStinnettsprior   marriagetoMeinhardbycheckingCumberlandCountys d  publicrecords.See189F.3d,at426( Thedocuments :  supporting[petitioners]SixthAmendmentclaimshave `  beenamatterofpublicrecordsinceStinnettsdivorce 6 becamefinalin1979.Indeed,because[petitioners]   federalhabeascounsellocatethosedocuments,thereis  littlereasontothinkthathisstatehabeascounsel h couldnothavedonesoaswell).Weshouldbe > surprised,tosaytheleast,ifadistrictcourt d familiarwiththestandardsoftrialpracticewereto : holdthatinallcasesdiligentcounselmustcheck  publicrecordscontainingpersonalinformation  pertainingtoeachandeveryjuror.Becauseof l StinnettandWoodsonssilence,therewasnobasisfor B aninvestigationintoStinnettsmarriagehistory. h ` Williamsv.Taylor,529U.S.420,443(2000).TheSupremeCourt  concludedthattheCourtofAppealshaderredandthatstate p  habeascounselhad madeareasonableefforttodiscoverthe !l" claims. "$ ! !  21. ` .XuXXXuTheSupremeCourtsetforththestandardfor t$& determiningdiligenceasfollows:  &p!( ` Thequestionisnotwhetherthefactscouldhavebeen '#* discoveredbutinsteadwhethertheprisonerwas (#+ D* D  D  diligentinhisefforts.Thepurposeofthefault  componentof failedistoensuretheprisoner  undertakeshisowndiligentsearchforevidence. \  Diligenceforpurposesoftheopeningclausedepends 2 uponwhethertheprisonermadeareasonableattempt,in f lightoftheinformationavailableatthetime,to J investigateandpursueclaimsinstatecourt;itdoes  . notdepend,astheCommonwealthwouldhaveit,upon   whetherthoseeffortscouldhavebeensuccessful .   #XuXX.Xu×##XXu؁#XuX` YgWilliamsv.Taylor,529U.S.at436(emphasisadded).The `   analysisconductedbythecircuitcourthereispreciselythe  \  analysiscondemnedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin   Williams.ThepluralityoverlookedWilliams.? #  33      ׀ d    22. ` Recently,JusticeBlackmun,joinedbyJusticesStevens ` andSouter,wrote:   ` Ithinkitiscrystalclearthattheexecutionofan h innocentpersonisatoddswithcontemporarystandards > offairnessanddecency.Spazianov.Florida,468 d U.S.447,465(1984).Indeed,itisatoddswithany : standardofdecencythatIcanimagine.  ` #XXu1#XuXHerrerav.Collins,506U.S.390,431(1993)(Blackmun,J., l dissenting). h   23. ` JusticeOConnor,joinedbyJusticeKennedy,stated:   H* H  H  ` Icannotdisagreewiththefundamentallegalprinciple  thatexecutingtheinnocentisinconsistentwiththe  Constitution.Regardlessoftheverbalformula \ employed!contrarytocontemporarystandardsof 2 decency,[citation]shockingtotheconscience, X [citation]oroffensivetoaprincipleofjusticeso . rootedinthetraditionsandconscienceofourpeople   astoberankedasfundamental[citation]!the   executionofalegallyandfactuallyinnocentperson `  wouldbeaconstitutionallyintolerableevent. 6   ` ơԡHerrera,506U.S.at419(OConnor,J.,concurring).  2    24. ` ChiefJusticeRehnquistauthoredtheopinionofthe   CourtinHerrera.Afterwritingthatinnocence,inandof :  itself,wasnotacognizableclaim,theChiefJusticesaid: 6 ` Thisisnottosaythatourhabeasjurisprudencecasts  ablindeyetowardinnocence.Inaseriesofcases h culminatingwithSawyerv.Whitley,505U.S.333 > (1992),decidedlastTerm,wehaveheldthata d petitionerotherwisesubjecttodefensesofabusiveor : successiveuseofthewritmayhavehisfederal  constitutionalclaimconsideredonthemeritsifhe  makesapropershowingofactualinnocence. l ` JXHerrerav.Collins,506U.S.at404. h   25. ` However,thepercuriampluralityinMr.Swaffords  casedoescastablindeyetoinnocence.Countenancingthe p  executionofamanwhoprobablywouldhavebeenacquittedin !l" lightofevidencenotpresentedathiscapitaltrialviolatesthe "$ EighthAmendment.InArbelaezv.Butterworth,738So.2d326, t$& 32627(Fla.1999),thisCourtheld, wehaveaconstitutional  &p!( responsibilitytoensurethedeathpenaltyisadministeredina '#* fair,consistentandreliablemanner,aswellashavingan x)$, administrativeresponsibilitytoworktominimizethedelays $+t&. inherentinthepostconvictionprocess.Thepercuriam  pluralityopinionisinconsistentwithArbelaez. \   26. ` ThereisnoquestionthattheStateinterviewedWalsh, X LestzandLeviin1982,thelastinterviewoccurringonJanuary   25,1983.However,theirnamesandthepolicereportsregarding `  themandtheirconnectiontotheRuckerhomicidewasnot  \  disclosedtoMr._Swafford_scounseluntilOctoberof1990.At   thattime,theStatemaintainedthatthreewerethoroughly d  investigatedanddiscardedassuspects.Notuntil1997didthe `  Statedisclosedthatfollowupinvestigationdidnotoccur.This   wasoverfourteenyearsafterapolicereportindicatedthat h followupinvestigationwouldoccur. d   27. ` InSeptemberof1990,Mr._Swafford_sexecutionwas  scheduledforNovemberof1990.Atthattime,theStateof l FloridagaveMr.Swaffordanattorneywhowaschargedwith h providinghimwitheffectiverepresentation.Theattorneysought  andobtainedpublicrecordswhichincludedthenamesofWalsh, p  LestzandLevi.Mr._Swafford_sattorneywasadvisedbytheState !l" thatthreenamesweredeadleadswhopossessednoexculpatory "$ information.Beforethescheduledexecution,theattorneyhadno t$& timetoinvestigatefurther;hesimplytriedtogetastayofthe  &p!( execution.ThestaycamefromtheEleventhCircuitCourtof '#* AppealsoneandahalfhoursbeforeMr._Swafford_sscheduled x)$, execution. $+t&.   28. ` Afterthestay,theStateprovidedattorneyresigned  andnewcounselwasprovidedMr.SwaffordbytheStateof \ Florida.Thenewattorneywasalsochargedwithproviding X effectiverepresentationtoMr.Swafford.Thenewattorneytried   totrackdownLestzandLeviusingthestandardsearchdeviceof `  theCCRoffice.NotuntilafterLestzdeclaredbankruptcyin  \  Decemberof1993wasthestateprovidedcounselabletolocate   Lestzandlearnwhathehadtosay. d    29. ` ThepercuriampluralityopinionexcusestheStates `  untimelynondisclosureofLestzname(fiveyearsafterthe   trial)becausetheStateprovidedcounselwasoneyearandsix h monthstoolateinlocatingLestz. d   30. ` Thepercuriampluralityopinionignoresthefactthat  collateralcounselwasprovidedbytheStateofFloridaand l obligatedunderFloridalawtoprovideMr.Swaffordwith h effectiverepresentation.WhenMr.Swaffordacceptedthe  attorneysprovidedbytheState,hehadbeenpromisedbythis p  Courtthattheattorneyswouldprovideeffectiverepresentation. !l" Yet,thepercuriampluralityopinionconcludesthatcollateral "$ counselwasnotdiligentandchargesthelackofdiligencetoMr. t$& Swafford,insteadoftheStatewhoprovidedcounselandfunded  &p!( theinvestigation. '#*   31. ` Throughitall,aninnocentMr.Swaffordhassaton x)$, deathrowforacrimethatheprobablywouldhavebeen_acquitted $+t&. ofhadthejuryknownoftheevidencethatisnowavailable.  Accordingtothepercuriampluralityopinion,heistoremain \ thereuntilheisexecuted.Surely,theEighthAmendmentdoes X notcountenancesucharesult.     WHEREFORE,undersignedcounselrespectfullyrequeststhis `  CourtgrantarehearingandreconsiderthedecisionofApril22,  \  2002.   ____  IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatrueandcorrectcopyofthe d  foregoingMotionhasbeenfurnishedbyUnitedStatesMail,first `  classpostageprepaid,toallcounselofrecord,this2nddayof   May,2002. h ____   `     h   Respectfullysubmitted, d ____   `     h      `     h   򀀀 l __   `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN B    `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773 h    `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_ԄSouth >    `     h   9701ShoreRd.Apt.1D     `     h   Brooklyn,NY11209     `     h   CCRCSouth F !    `     h   101NE3dAve.;Suite400 !l"    `     h   Ft.Lauderdale,FL33301 !B#    `     h   (954)7131284 "$    `     h   CounselforMr.Swafford #% Copiesfurnishedto: '#* _Judy_ԀTaylor_Rush x)$, __Asst._ԀAttorneyGeneral N*%- 444SeabreezeBlvd.,5thFloor $+t&. DaytonaBeach,FL_32118_ +J'/ #XXuu#XuX