Cary Michael Lambrix v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
227 So. 3d 550
| Fla. | 2017Background
- In 1983 Cary Michael Lambrix (aka Michael Ray Lambrix) was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of Aleisha Bryant and Clarence Moore, Jr.; convictions and death sentences became final in 1986.
- Trial evidence included testimony from roommate Frances Smith that Lambrix admitted killing both victims, Smith’s participation in burying the bodies, eyewitness testimony placing Lambrix with the victims, and physical evidence (tire iron, car, bodies buried near Lambrix’s trailer).
- Lambrix’s case has an extensive, multi-decade procedural history with repeated state and federal postconviction and habeas challenges; courts have repeatedly rejected his claims and denied relief.
- In 2016–2017 Lambrix sought further relief after an execution date was set; this petition (filed Aug 31, 2017) raised three primary claims: (1) freestanding/ cumulative review for actual and legal innocence, (2) denial of the right to testify, and (3) denial of access to materials for DNA testing.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied the habeas petition, concluding prior adjudication and that Lambrix failed to show new evidence that would likely produce acquittal or mitigation or to justify relief on any asserted constitutional ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freestanding cumulative review/freestanding actual innocence | Lambrix argued due process and Eighth Amendment require cumulative state-court review of all evidence to establish actual/legal innocence and entitle him to relief | State argued claim is duplicative, procedurally barred, and Florida does not recognize a freestanding innocence claim; prior reviews found no basis for relief | Denied — Florida does not recognize a freestanding actual-innocence claim; prior reviews are adequate and evidence would not probably produce acquittal or mitigation |
| New evidence (Smith testimony, Hanzel recantation, belated self‑defense) | New or recanted evidence undermines Smith and Hanzel and supports self‑defense theory sufficient to warrant evidentiary hearing/retrial | State: recantation and other alleged new evidence do not meet legal standards; other strong inculpatory evidence remains; self‑defense theory is belated, unsupported | Denied — courts found recantation and other alleged new evidence insufficient and self‑defense was a late, unsupported theory |
| Right to testify / right to present defense | Lambrix claimed he was prevented from testifying at trial (advised he could not without losing counsel) and thus denied fundamental right to testify | State: claim was previously litigated and rejected; advice by counsel was limited and litigable; claim procedurally barred where not timely raised | Denied — claim previously litigated and rejected; not entitlement to relief |
| Access to DNA testing | Lambrix sought DNA testing of items (tire iron, clothing, shirt) asserting possible exculpatory DNA (e.g., Moore on Bryant) | State: testing will not reasonably produce exoneration or reduce sentence; prior testing and facts explain expected results (e.g., items disposed in stream; Smith at scene) | Denied — Lambrix failed to show a reasonable probability that testing would exonerate or mitigate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambrix v. State, 494 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1986) (direct-appeal opinion describing facts and affirming convictions)
- Lambrix v. State, 39 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 2010) (postconviction review rejecting recantation and freestanding innocence claims)
- Lambrix v. State, 124 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2013) (affirming denial of successive postconviction relief and discussing procedurally barred claims)
- Lambrix v. State, 217 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2017) (recent opinion addressing Hurst issues and denying successive claims)
- Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008) (rejecting claim that failure to recognize freestanding innocence violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for gateway actual-innocence claims in federal habeas context)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Supreme Court decision affecting Florida death-penalty procedures)
- Scott v. State, 46 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2009) (defendant bears burden to show how DNA testing would likely exonerate or mitigate)