Charles Finney #516349

Housing P1213-S

Union Correctional Institution

PO Box 221

Raiford, FL 32083

August 10, 2001

Capital Collateral Regional Counsel – Middle Region

3801 Corporex Park Drive, Suite 210

Tampa, FL 33619

Attn: Bill Jennings

When Mr. Jennings visited me several weeks ago, he said that if I had any problems or concerns about the handling of my case, I should contact him personally.

During that same visit, I made it known to him that I had concerns about the level of competent representation received from previous attorneys assigned to my case in the Middle District. Mr. Jennings personally made reference to the many complaints and questionable actions of Jack Crooks, who although only represented me for approximately one year, did great damage to my appeals. I’m sure that the various letters and complaints I personally made against Crooks have been read. There is no question in my mind that you already know all about the problems and issues that I have continually been having with the representation I’ve received so far from the Middle District.

When Mr. Jennings was appointed to lead the CCRC-Middle Region office in April, he fired my then current attorney, Joseph Hobson. Upon his removal, Richard Kiley and Ruck Deminico were assigned to my case. Richard Kiley previously worked in the office of the Middle District and was not highly regarded because of complaints about his ability and the efforts put forth in representing his clients. Ruck Deminico currently works on more than twelve cases, and neither he nor Mr. Kiley meet the most basic standards to work on death penalty appeals.

When Mr. Kiley and Mr. Deminico visited me, they both lied and said that Mr. Hobson didn’t leave behind any of my files with background information about my case or myself. If this is true, which I do not believe, then Mr. Hobson would be guilty of hindering my appeal efforts. Mr. Hobson and I had finally begun to develop a good working relationship over time, and he was working hard to gather together new issues and build a strong appeal on my behalf. And, without prior notice to either Mr. Hobson or to myself, he is fired, and I am not notified by your office of his release for quite some time. I have not been given any explanation as to why an attorney who was finally making progress with my appeals was let go. Even more at issue is the fact that if Mr. Hobson did fail to leave behind my files or the notes on my case, there is no way possible that Mr. Kiley can claim to be knowledgeable enough about my case to argue a brief that he did not write before the Florida Supreme Court. This is not acceptable, and it is not ethical.

It is also not ethical that an attorney, Mr. Hobson, who was finally working with me on my case, was replaced simply to make room for one of Mr. Jennings’ former political contributors. It is not ethical for a $250.00 political donation made by Richard Kiley to oust an established attorney who has worked with me for over a year to make way for one whose competence is questionable and undocumented. This is a clear violation of the Professional Code of Ethics.

I also have no confidence in the Middle Region with Mr. Jennings having such vocal pro-death penalty leanings, as was quoted in newspapers during his run for Hillsborough County State’s Attorney. I am not confident that a man with such strong opinions will be open and receptive to genuine claims of innocence. I have no confidence that he can go beyond his political ambitions to admit that the state makes mistakes, and that he will not urge his attorneys to fight to expose and overturn cases of innocents wrongly convicted. I have no confidence that a man who fired competent attorneys, only to replace them with political partners and financial backers, has anything beyond his own personal agenda at stake. I have no confidence in a man who sacrifices his client’s lives for his own political advancement, which is what I feel has happened to me as well as to others. I have no confidence that Mr. Jennings and his staff will fight for my life and for my freedom. By his actions, Mr. Jennings has demonstrated that he is serving two conflicting masters—one being his priority to serve his personal and political profits, contra to his clients’ best interests. His other "master" is to serve his clients’ needs by following ethical guidelines, which by his acts, have proven to be contradictory masters to him.

I also have a major conflict with the fact that Mr. Jennings has close alliances with the legal couple of Nick and Karen Cox. Mr. Cox was the prosecutor during my trial, and his wife recently was cited for misconduct. This is a major point of conflict, that Mr. Jennings is a colleague of my former prosecutor, and that there are working ties between them.

In firing my attorney, Mr. Jennings has totally demonstrated his disregard for my needs and wishes. He has demonstrated a total lack of respect for the ethical guidelines of continuity between a lawyer and client, and has placed his own personal relations before the needs of his clients. He has fired competent attorneys and then not been truthful as to why they were released, replacing them with friends and financial backers.

I refer now to the motion that was recently filed by the state, "APPELLANT’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT ASSERTION OF NEW ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT." This motion was submitted on April 3, 2001. Mr. Kiley responded on July 2, 2001, and in his response, Mr. Kiley states that he is unaware of other possible issues that Mr. Hobson had planned to argue during oral arguments. Since Mr. Hobson was abruptly removed from this office, and my case, before he had the chance to fully develop his amended motion, or brief, his intentions and any further research that has been made into my claims of innocence have gone unheeded by Mr. Kiley. How presumptuous of Mr. Kiley to make this assertion that there are no other issues without any investigation into this possibility. Neither Mr. Kiley nor Mr. Jennings have shown any interest in contacting Mr. Hobson to explore what other issues exist. He has not been contacted to see if he had, indeed, intended to amend his motion and expand his brief. And, most important of all, nobody currently in this office has asked me anything about these issues. This demonstrates a grave lack of concern for the truth, and total indifference to my case. This is incompetence. It also proves that all clients represented by the Middle District are nothing more than pay checks and political stepping stones for ambitious former prosecutors.

The Court has continuously summarily denied every issue that I have raised in both the capital case and the underlying case without attaching the portions of my transcripts that show that I am entitled to no relief. This is a violation of the 3.850 Rule in itself. This shows a prejudice in the Courts actions that go beyond the scope of jurisprudence.

Jack Crooks lied and conspired with the State’s Attorney’s Office in order to circumvent my efforts to raise the issue of DNA evidence which would prove that I did not commit the murder of Sandra Sutherland. The original lab reports, the actions of the state to drop the sexual battery in the murder case, and Jack Crooks’ statement made during a status hearing bares witness to this fact. Even the finger print evidence that the state presented at the trial was subjective.

The State use of the underlying case to give me the death penalty, plus allowing the victim of that case to testify at the penalty phase while knowing the case was severely flawed, made this aggravating circumstance an arguable issue on the appeal of the murder case. It should have been presented before the court at an evidentiary hearing due to the questionable and suspect DNA chain of custody. A complete investigation into this issue would have produced evidence that would have overturned the capital case, but I have been continuously denied the right to bring this issue forward by previous and present attorneys. And, when Mr. Hobson was finally exploring the validity of these claims, and making steady progress, he is fired from my case, and another non-interested attorney put in his place.

On all of these issues, I refer you to Rule 4-1.2 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Because of the length of this grievance, I have provided a cover letter, outlining the remedies I am requesting, and I refer you to the transcripts of proceedings held on May 4, 2000 before Judge Chet A. Tharpe. At this hearing, Judge Tharpe denied my motion for a 3.850, after hearing Jack Crooks present a woefully abject version of that motion. Mr. Crooks lied about not being able to find the evidences in order to do a DNA test, and it was evident that the State’s attorney and the court were aware of this lie. This entire situation was staged so that my claim could be denied. I would suggest that a first year law clerk could look at the original lab reports and see that the evidence has been altered—hair samples that were examined and found not to be Negroid suddenly are. Semen stains which were examined and found to be not testable, now contain testable properties "such as blood" that were not there before.

Jack Crooks did not question or investigate these matters, and took no interest in the disparity despite repeated objections by myself. The Court made no inquiry into his assertion that he could not move forward on the DNA claim because the state had not turned over evidence that was needed, or that they were destroyed by the coroner’s office.

Mr. Crooks and the State’s attorney both had a copy of a letter from the coroner’s supervisor, stating that the swabs and rape kit were sent directly to the FDLE, so they were in the hands of the state. The Court had previously ordered the state to turn over this evidence, but it did not question why it had not been done at this hearing. This demonstrates prior intent that Jack Crooks had planned on doing this.

These examples only partially begin to demonstrate the level of poor representation given to me by Mr. Crooks. And, to date, all indications given to me so far by Mr. Kiley show that he has the same disregard as Jack Crooks for exploring valid issues that would prove my innocence. He has demonstrated to me that he will not go to any extra effort to explore the new issues that Mr. Hobson had begun to discover. And, Mr. Kiley has shown absolutely no interest in following up leads that I have given him to continue along this same line of investigation. In other words, Mr. Kiley has shown that he does not have my best interests at heart, and I have absolutely no confidence that he will put forth his best efforts on my behalf.

Finally, I asked Mr. Jennings during his visit why Eric C. Pinkard, who was not assigned to work on my case, was allowed to respond on my behalf to a May 16^th motion filed by the state. Mr. Jennings stated to me that basically it "didn’t matter." Well, to me it DOES matter! I was not contacted about this, nor was I given the opportunity to give any input into this filing at all. This further demonstrates what little regard Mr. Jennings has for this client’s wishes—that he would assign various attorneys, none of who have any working knowledge of my case, to take their turns responding to various motions put forth by the state. There is no continuance in this method, and there is no good representation here. It is impossible.

Therefore, for the above reasons mentioned, I again state that I have no trust in an office lead by Mr. Jennings, or in my latest assigned attorneys, Richard Kiley and Ruck Deminico. They have demonstrated to me over the last four months that they have no interest in my case whatsoever. They have no desire to work with me or to listen to my suggestions, and they show a total disregard in helping to guarantee that I have the absolute best chances available to me for a successful appeal. Despite numerous complaints and questions over mistrust made recently to Mr. Jennings, he prefers to manipulate his clients into compliance rather than search for the validity of these complaints and seek to find a viable solution for all involved—the client and the attorneys.

Due to all of the above reasons cited for conflict of interest, I respectfully request that my case be immediately moved to either of the other Capital Collateral Regional Counsel offices, either North or South.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

Charles W. Finney # 516349

Cc: Capital Collateral Regional Counsel – Northern Region

Post Office Drawer 5498

Tallahassee, FL 32314-5498

Capital Collateral Regional Counsel – Southern Region

101 NE 3^rd Ave., Suite 400

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301