Florida v. Nixon

In Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004), a capital murder case, the defendant's attorney made "a strategic decision to concede, at the guilt phase of the trial, the defendant's commission of murder, and to concentrate the defense on establishing, at the penalty phase, cause for sparing the defendant's life." The defendant's trial counsel, after realizing the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt in a capital trial, determined the best strategy was to concede guilt during trial on the charges and plead to the jury to spare his life during the penalty phase. (Nixon, supra, 543 U.S. at pp. 180-181.) Defendant never expressly consented to this strategy. (Id. at p. 181.) The Florida Supreme Court concluded that this was equivalent to a guilty plea; since defendant did not expressly affirm the guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel was presumed and it reversed the conviction. (Id. at pp. 185-186.) Reviewing the defendant's murder conviction and death sentence, the Florida Supreme Court held that, "a concession of that order ... made without the defendant's express consent" constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, "however gruesome the crime and despite the strength of the evidence of guilt." Id. Noting that "defense counsel undoubtedly has a duty to discuss potential strategies with the defendant," the Supreme Court nonetheless reversed the Florida court's decision, holding that, " when a defendant, informed by counsel, neither consents nor objects to the course counsel describes as the most promising means to avert a sentence of death, counsel is not automatically barred from pursuing that course." Id. Only for certain decisions: "Whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal," must an attorney "both consult with the defendant and obtain consent to the recommended course of action." 543 U.S. at 187. The Supreme Court granted review. It first set forth the general requirements for effective assistance. "An attorney undoubtedly has a duty to consult with the client regarding 'important decisions,' including questions of overarching defense strategy. That obligation, however, does not require counsel to obtain the defendant's consent to 'every tactical decision.' But certain decisions regarding the exercise or waiver of basic trial rights are of such moment that they cannot be made for the defendant by a surrogate. A defendant, this Court affirmed, has 'the ultimate authority' to determine 'whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.' Concerning those decisions, an attorney must both consult with the defendant and obtain consent to the recommended course of action." (Nixon, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 187.) It reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, finding that counsel had provided effective assistance as he had sound trial strategy and defendant was unresponsive to counsel's requests for consent. (Id. at p. 192.)