Aramis Donell Ayala, etc. v. Rick Scott, Governor
224 So. 3d 755
| Fla. | 2017Background
- State Attorney Aramis Ayala announced a blanket policy refusing to seek the death penalty in all death-penalty-eligible cases in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit.
- Governor Rick Scott issued executive orders reassigning those death-penalty-eligible prosecutions in the Ninth Circuit to Brad King (Fifth Circuit) under § 27.14(1), Fla. Stat., citing his duty to ensure laws are faithfully executed.
- The governor’s orders did not direct King to seek death in any particular case; King swore the governor did not influence his case-by-case decisions.
- Ayala challenged the reassignments by petition for quo warranto after a lower-court stay request failed; she cooperated with the reassignment while litigation proceeded.
- The Florida Supreme Court framed review as assessing whether the Governor abused his broad statutory discretion under § 27.14(1) in reassigning state-attorney duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ayala) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governor exceeded § 27.14 authority by reassigning death-penalty cases | Ayala: Article V §17 makes her the prosecuting officer for the circuit; reassignment overrides elected prosecutorial discretion | Scott: §27.14 permits assignment when "good and sufficient reason" exists to serve ends of justice; Ayala’s blanket refusal justifies reassignment | Held: No abuse — reassignment within statutory authority because Ayala’s blanket policy gave good and sufficient reason |
| Whether Ayala’s blanket refusal is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion | Ayala: Refusal to seek death is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion and resource allocation | Scott: A categorical ban is not individualized discretion but a refusal to exercise discretion, undermining statutory law authorizing death penalty | Held: Court: blanket policy is not true discretion; it effectively vetoes law and justifies reassignment |
| Whether the Governor’s orders violated separation of powers or improperly directed prosecutions | Ayala: Executive meddling in prosecutorial decisions undermines elected independence and constitutional office | Scott: Prosecuting (including seeking death) is executive function; assignments implement the Governor’s duty to execute the law without directing specific case outcomes | Held: No separation‑of‑powers violation: orders ensured law remained an option while leaving case-by-case decisions to assigned prosecutor |
| Whether the Governor abused discretion by interfering with case-specific charging decisions | Ayala: Governor’s reassignment is an overreach into prosecutorial judgment | Scott: Orders did not instruct King to seek death in any case; King retains independent judgment | Held: No abuse — facts show Governor did not attempt to dictate individual charging decisions and left discretion to King |
Key Cases Cited
- Finch v. Fitzpatrick, 254 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1971) (Governor has broad authority to assign state attorneys and need only make a general recitation of reasons)
- Austin v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1975) (State Attorneys are constitutional officers; assignment statute complements Governor’s duty to execute laws)
- Kirk v. Baker, 224 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1969) (assignment of a state attorney lies within chief executive’s authority when statute is followed)
- Johns v. State, 197 So. 791 (Fla. 1940) (writ of quo warranto available if assignment power abused arbitrarily)
- McFadden v. State, 177 So.3d 562 (Fla. 2015) (standard that discretion is abused only when arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable)
- Freeman v. State, 858 So.2d 319 (Fla. 2003) (decision to seek the death penalty is within the prosecutor’s discretion)
- Johnson v. Pataki, 91 N.Y.2d 214 (N.Y. 1997) (adopting a blanket policy against the death penalty is tantamount to refusing to exercise discretion)