Stephen Smith v. State of Florida, Appellee Stephen Smith v. Michael D. Crews

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied habeas corpus relief. It held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence concerning Smith's intended sexual assault of a guard because the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and that Smith failed to establish prejudice from the alleged failure to provide psychiatric records to the defense expert. The court also held that most habeas claims were procedurally improper, that the execution-incompetency claim was premature, and that appellate counsel was not ineffective for omitting meritless constitutional challenges to Florida's capital-sentencing scheme. Justice Pariente, concurring in result, would have found error in admitting the intended-rape evidence but no resulting prejudice.