In three days of bulk deci­sion-mak­ing, the Florida Supreme Court has denied new sen­tenc­ing hear­ings to more than thir­ty death-row pris­on­ers, declin­ing to enforce its bar against non-unan­i­mous death sen­tences to cas­es that became final on appeal before June 2002. At least 24 of the pris­on­ers who were denied relief had been uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sen­tenced to death after non-unan­i­mous jury sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tions, includ­ing three pris­on­ers—Etheria Verdell Jackson, Ernest D. Suggs, and Harry Franklin Phillips—with bare major­i­ty death rec­om­men­da­tions of 7 – 5. The Florida court adopt­ed June 24, 2002 as its cut­off date for enforc­ing its deci­sion because that was when the U.S. Supreme Court decid­ed Ring v. Arizona, an Arizona case estab­lish­ing that the right to a jury tri­al enti­tles a cap­i­tal defen­dant to have a jury find all facts that are nec­es­sary for a death sen­tence to be imposed. In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hurst v. Florida that Florida’s death-penal­ty statute, which reserved penal­ty-phase factfind­ing for the judge, vio­lat­ed Ring. Later, also in Hurst’s case, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a cap­i­tal defen­dan­t’s right to a jury tri­al also required a unan­i­mous jury vote for death before the tri­al judge could impose a death sen­tence. That deci­sion poten­tial­ly inval­i­dat­ed more than 375 Florida death sen­tences. However, in December 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Ring had announced a new legal right and that it would not apply Hurst to cas­es that had already com­plet­ed their direct appeal before Ring was decid­ed. The court issued opin­ions declin­ing to apply Hurst in ten death-penal­ty cas­es on January 22, anoth­er ten on January 23, and a third set of ten on January 24. The court also issued unpub­lished orders deny­ing relief in some oth­er cas­es. Still more deci­sions are expect­ed. These rul­ings reit­er­ate the court’s deci­sion to not grant relief to pris­on­ers who were uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sen­tenced to death pri­or to Ring. On August 10, 2017, the court, by a 6 – 1 vote, upheld the death sen­tence imposed on James Hitchcock, despite his being uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sen­tenced to death fol­low­ing a non-una­n­imious sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tion by the jury. In dis­sent­ing, Justice Barbara J. Pariente wrote: To deny Hitchcock relief when oth­er sim­i­lar­ly sit­u­at­ed defen­dants have been grant­ed relief amounts to a denial of due process.” In 80% of the new opin­ions, juries had not unan­i­mous­ly rec­om­mend­ed death, but the pris­on­ers’ appeals had been com­plet­ed before Ring was decid­ed. In four cas­es, the appeals of uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers became final in 2001. Steven Maurice Evanss appeal became final in March of 2002 and James Fords uncon­sti­tu­tion­al death sen­tence became final in May 28, 2002, less than a month before Ring was decid­ed. In the six cas­es in which pris­on­ers had unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tions for death, the court declined to review oth­er poten­tial vio­la­tions of Hurst and whether instruc­tions dimin­ish­ing the jury’s sense of respon­si­bil­i­ty may have uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly affect­ed the ver­dict. Among those whose appeals were denied on January 22, 2018 is Eric Scott Branch, who was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sen­tenced to death fol­low­ing a 10 – 2 jury rec­om­men­da­tion for death in 1997. Branch is set to be exe­cut­ed on February 22. According to a Death Penalty Information Center analy­sis of Florida’s death-row pris­on­ers who have non-unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tions and whose con­vic­tions became final post-Ring, 153 pris­on­ers on Florida’s death row are enti­tled to resen­tenc­ing. Of them,123 (or 80.9%) have already obtained relief. At least eigh­teen pris­on­ers who obtained relief under Hurst have since been resen­tenced to life, while two pris­on­ers who ini­tial­ly had non-unan­i­mous sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tions have been resen­tenced to death. In 2017, Florida exe­cut­ed two pris­on­ers—Marc Asay and Michael Lambrix—after deny­ing them relief despite their uncon­sti­tu­tion­al non-unan­i­mous death sen­tences. [UPDATE: The Florida Supreme Court issued opin­ions deny­ing relief in ten addi­tion­al death-penal­ty cas­es on January 26, bring­ing the total of cas­es in which it declined to apply the con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions announced in Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State dur­ing the past week to at least 41.] 

(Florida Supreme Court rejects 10 Death Row appeals at same time, Orlando Sentinel, January 22, 2018; State rejects 40 death penal­ty appeals this week, News Service of Florida, January 27, 2018.) Read DPIC’s web­page pro­vid­ing back­ground on Florida’s han­dling of the cas­es lit­i­gat­ed under Hurst here. See Arbitrariness and Sentencing.

Citation Guide