Francis was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He brought this post-conviction proceeding, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Francis argued that his trial attorney had failed to offer as mitigation evidence proof that Francis had FAS.

The state judge who held a hearing on this claim ruled that Francis did not have FAS. This is one of the few cases in which the parties litigated and a court decided whether a particular individual had FAS. The evidence offered by each side is not described in detail. The witness called by Francis, a psychiatrist, had interviewed Francis, and based his diagnosis of FAS "primarily on Francis' facial characteristics." 529 So. 2d at 673. The prosecution's rebuttal expert, also a psychiatrist, testified that discussions between Francis and the trial judge at Francis' earlier trial "was grossly inconsistent with somebody who is brain damaged." 529 So. 2d at 673. Francis had an IQ in the normal range.

The appellate court rejected the ineffectiveness claim on the ground that there was not a "reasonable probability" that Francis would have avoided the death penalty if evidence regarding FAS had been introduced. 529 So. 2d at 673-74 and n. 9. This was based in part on the fact that the judge who rejected Francis' claim for post-conviction relief was the same judge who had earlier sentenced him to death.

A dissenting opinion noted that impairment due to brain damage was a mitigating factor under Florida law. 529 So. 2d at 678.