CARY LAMBRIX v. SECRETARY, DOC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19459
11th Cir.2017Background
- Cary Michael Lambrix, convicted in 1984 of two capital murders and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences became final in 1986.
- Over decades Lambrix filed numerous state and federal collateral challenges; the instant filing was his fifth federal § 2254 petition and eighth successive state post-conviction motion challenging non-unanimous jury death findings in light of Hurst.
- Florida and federal courts rejected Lambrix’s requests to apply Hurst v. Florida and Florida’s amended death-penalty statute (Chapter 2017-1, requiring unanimous jury findings) retroactively to his pre-Ring, final sentences.
- Lambrix filed a § 2254 petition (Oct. 2, 2017) and motion for a stay of execution; the district court dismissed the petition as successive and denied a stay, but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the procedural jurisdictional question.
- The State moved to vacate the district court’s COA as defective for failing to state that Lambrix made a substantial showing of a constitutional denial or to identify the underlying constitutional claim; the Eleventh Circuit vacated the COA, construed Lambrix’s notice as a COA application, and denied COA and stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lambrix’s § 2254 petition is second or successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) | Lambrix: claim not successive because it only ripened when Chapter 2017‑1 took effect (Mar. 13, 2017); Panetti exception for claims that become ripe only when execution is imminent applies | State: facts and sentencing circumstances unchanged since 1986; claim rests on a change in law and thus is successive unless authorized by court of appeals | Court avoided deciding; assumed arguendo not successive but denied relief on merits-related grounds |
| Whether Hurst and Ring principles apply retroactively to Lambrix (pre‑Ring final sentence) | Lambrix: Hurst and Florida statute create substantive right to jury unanimity; retroactive application required by Due Process, Equal Protection, Eighth Amendment | State: Ring and Hurst are not retroactive on collateral review; precedent (Schriro/Ring) treats Ring prospectively; Lambrix is similarly situated to other pre‑Ring defendants | No reasonable jurist could debate that Hurst/Ring do not apply retroactively to Lambrix; COA denied |
| Whether Florida’s Chapter 2017‑1 must be applied retroactively (Equal Protection/Due Process/Eighth) | Lambrix: legislature intended retroactivity; failure to apply creates arbitrary, unequal treatment | State: legislature did not indicate retroactivity; Supreme Court precedent permits nonretroactive statutory changes and line-drawing (Dobbert) | Florida courts’ non-retroactivity decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; COA denied |
| Whether the district court’s COA was proper | Lambrix: district court granted COA on jurisdictional/procedural issue | State: COA defective because it did not state that Lambrix made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor identify the underlying constitutional claim | Eleventh Circuit vacated the COA as defective and denied a COA on the merits; stay of execution denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (recognizing that facts increasing punishment must be found by a jury)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (extending Apprendi to capital sentencing; held judge-alone finding of aggravators unconstitutional)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (Ring is not retroactive on collateral review)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (Ford competency claims may ripen only when execution is imminent; successive-petition bar does not apply to such claims)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for COA; COA not pro forma)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (when dismissal on procedural grounds, COA requires showing both procedural and substantive debatable issues)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (permitting nonretroactive statutory classifications in the capital context)