## Facts

- Ronny A. Zamora, age 15, was tried in Florida state court for first-degree murder, burglary, robbery, and firearm possession arising from the killing of his 82-year-old neighbor, Elinor Haggart.
- Zamora pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity; defense counsel presented an insanity theory partly attributed to “television intoxication.”
- A jury convicted Zamora on all counts.
- The court imposed concurrent sentences, including life imprisonment for murder with parole eligibility after 25 years, plus concurrent terms for the remaining offenses.
- After unsuccessful direct review and state post-conviction proceedings, Zamora filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the district court denied relief.
- Zamora appealed the denial of habeas relief to the Eleventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move to suppress Zamora’s police confessions.
2. Whether counsel’s presentation of an insanity defense framed in part as “television intoxication” constituted deficient performance and prejudiced the defense.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to develop separate defenses to the burglary, robbery, and firearm counts.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue plea negotiations.
5. Whether counsel had a constitutionally significant conflict of interest based on an alleged pursuit of publicity that adversely affected representation.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Zamora’s § 2254 petition.
- Applying Strickland, the court held Zamora failed to establish deficient performance and, in any event, failed to show prejudice.
- Any failure to seek suppression of police confessions was not prejudicial given other strong evidence, including Zamora’s confessions to friends and evidence tying him to the victim’s car, gun, and money.
- Counsel’s “television intoxication” framing was treated as a strategic method to support an insanity defense and did not amount to constitutionally deficient advocacy.
- Counsel’s lack of separate defenses to the non-murder counts was not ineffective where the record showed no viable alternative defense under the presented expert testimony and proof.
- The plea-bargaining claim failed for lack of proof that a favorable plea was realistically available and would have been accepted and approved.
- The conflict/publicity claim failed for lack of evidence of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance claims are governed by Strickland v. Washington’s two-part test: (1) deficient performance measured against reasonable professional norms and (2) prejudice requiring a reasonable probability of a different result absent the alleged errors.
- Strategic decisions made after reasonable investigation and deliberation are generally not grounds for Sixth Amendment relief merely because the strategy was novel, controversial, or unsuccessful.
- A defendant cannot establish Strickland prejudice from an alleged error relating to a confession when other independent evidence of guilt makes a different outcome not reasonably probable.
- Claims based on failure to pursue plea discussions require more than speculation; the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that a plea would have been offered, accepted, and approved.
- Conflict-of-interest allegations require proof of an actual conflict and an adverse effect on representation; publicity surrounding a case, without more, does not establish a constitutional conflict.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of federal habeas relief because Zamora did not meet Strickland’s deficiency-and-prejudice requirements for any asserted attorney error, particularly in light of substantial independent evidence of guilt and the deference afforded to reasonable defense strategy choices.


Zamora v. Dugger, 834 F.2d 956 (11th Cir. 1987)