← Case library
FL Supreme CourtAugust 25, 2022Affirmed denial of postconviction relief; habeas petition denied⭐ Notable

Covington v. State / Covington v. Dixon

Case No. SC21-295 & SC21-1077

In this capital postconviction appeal and habeas petition, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of Rule 3.851 relief and denied habeas relief to a defendant sentenced to death for murdering his girlfriend and her two children. The Court rejected multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims relating to penalty-phase strategy, including failure to elicit an insanity opinion, failure to obtain a PET scan, failure to redact a graphic confession video, failure to rebut antisocial personality disorder/psychopathy testimony, and failure to separately argue substance abuse as independent mitigation, finding counsel's choices reasonable trial strategy and no resulting prejudice.

Key facts

  • Covington was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his girlfriend and her two children.
  • On postconviction appeal, Covington raised multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims relating to penalty-phase strategy, including counsel's failure to obtain certain mental-health opinions, neuroimaging evidence, and redaction of a confession video.
  • +1 more key fact with a free trial

Why it matters

While fact-intensive, this capital postconviction opinion usefully compiles several recurring IAC principles for capital and non-capital practitioners alike: that eliciting underlying facts without a formal 'ultimate… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.