Yesterday, as part of what is likely the Court’s last regular release of opinions before summer break, the Florida Supreme Court issued decisions in two direct appeals.
Cox v. State
This is Allen Ward Cox’s direct appeal from his sentence of death imposed on resentencing granted as a result of
Hurst.1 The opinion is authored by Justice Sasso.
Cox was originally sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1999 while he was imprisoned at Lake Correctional Institute. In 2017, Cox was granted a new penalty phase based on Hurst.
Cox’s resentencing proceeded under Florida’s prior capital sentencing scheme that required a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death, among other findings. At the end of the penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended that Cox be sentenced to death. On October 24, 2022, the trial court resentenced Cox to death.
On direct appeal, Cox raised seven issues:
(1) the trial court erred in rejecting the nonstatutory mitigating circumstance that Cox suffers from the early signs of dementia, (2) the trial court erred in rejecting two of the proposed nonstatutory mitigators, (3) the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s comments during closing was so prejudicial as to taint the jury’s recommended sentence, (4) the trial court erroneously placed the burden of showing mitigating circumstances on the defendant, (5) executing an offender with brain damage violates the Eighth Amendment, (6) Florida’s capital punishment scheme violates the Eighth Amendment, and (7) the death penalty itself violates the Eighth Amendment.
The State filed a cross-appeal presenting one issue.
As to Cox’s final four claims regarding the constitutionality of Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, the Court said the claims “are well-worn” and have been “repeatedly rejected.”
The Court denied relief on all claims and affirmed the death sentence. Because the Court did not find merit to Cox’s claims, they declined to address the State’s cross-appeal.
Justice Labarga concurred in result, reiterating his disapproval of the Court’s abandonment of “its decades-long practice of conducting comparative proportionality review in death penalty direct appeal cases.”
The full opinion can be accessed
here.
Johnson v. State
This is Tyrone T. Johnson’s direct appeal from his sentence of death. The opinion is authored by Justice Couriel.
Johnson was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 2018. The jury recommended a sentence of death unanimously under Florida’s prior capital sentencing scheme, and the trial court sentenced Johnson to death.
On appeal, Johnson raised seven issues. The Court focused on three: (1) those arising from a video of Johnson’s interrogation that was admitted in the guilt phase, (2) Al Johnson’s testimony at the Spencer hearing,2 and (3) the trial court’s sentencing order. On the first two issues, the Court found no error. As to the third issue, the Court found the trial court made an error by misunderstanding the “no significant history” mitigator. (The State conceded error on this point.) However, the Court determined this error was harmless and denied relief. The Court affirmed Johnson’s conviction and sentence of death.
Justice Labarga concurred in result, reiterating his disapproval of the Court’s abandonment of “its decades-long practice of conducting comparative proportionality review in death penalty direct appeal cases.”
The full opinion can be accessed
here.
1- For a full explanation of
Hurst, see the five-part TFDP series available
here.
2 - Al Johnson is Tyrone Johnson’s brother.
Source:
fladeathpenalty.substack.com, Staff, July 12, 2024
_____________________________________________________________________
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
