Arthur James Martin v. State of Florida & Arthur James Martin v. Mark S. Inch

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Martin's guilt-phase postconviction claims and denied his habeas petition. It held that counsel's isolated deficiencies did not establish a reasonable probability of a different guilt-phase outcome, and that the Brady, Giglio, prosecutorial-misconduct, and appellate-counsel claims either failed on the merits or were procedurally barred. The court did not address claims concerning the initial penalty phase because Martin was already entitled to a new penalty phase. No separate opinions were filed.