State of Florida, Appellant v. Thomas D. Woodel, Appellee; Thomas D. Woodel, Cross-Appellant, V — Pariente, J…

Summary

The dissent would affirm the trial court’s grant of a new penalty phase because trial counsel failed to conduct a meaningful mitigation investigation before either the original or resentencing proceeding, and the resulting omissions undermined confidence in the death sentence. It criticized the majority for analyzing prejudice piecemeal rather than considering counsel’s deficiencies cumulatively against the totality of the available mitigation evidence. Justice Canady, concurring in result, would reverse the new-penalty-phase ruling because Woodel failed to establish prejudice, while agreeing that the guilt-phase denial should be affirmed.