Correll v. State, 184 So. 3d 478

Background

Jerry William Correll was convicted of four first‑degree murders (ex‑wife, daughter, mother‑in‑law, sister) and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences affirmed in 1988.
After multiple prior postconviction and federal habeas proceedings, Correll filed third and fourth successive state postconviction motions after a warrant issued in 2015.
Claims included: Florida death‑penalty statutory challenges (jury majority and Ring), excessive time on death row, right to know identities/background of execution‑team members (public‑records requests), and as‑applied challenge to Florida’s three‑drug lethal‑injection protocol based on midazolam (risk of paradoxical reaction given Correll’s history).
Following Glossip v. Gross (U.S. Supreme Court upholding use of midazolam in a similar protocol), this Court limited review and the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing only on Correll’s as‑applied paradoxical‑reaction claim.
At the one‑day hearing experts disagreed about the likelihood and predictability of paradoxical reactions; the circuit court found defense expert opinions speculative and denied relief. This Court affirmed the summary denials and sustained public‑records objections, then lifted the stay of execution.

Issues

Issue	Correll's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Florida death‑penalty system violates evolving standards because jury recommendation can be a simple majority	Jury majority recommendations are unconstitutional under evolving standards	Court precedent rejects this claim; Ring inapplicable retroactively	Rejected; Court follows precedent — not entitled to relief
Whether time on death row (~29 years) is cruel and unusual punishment	Lengthy confinement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment	Prior Florida decisions permit long delays; not per se unconstitutional	Rejected; claim previously rejected in similar cases
Whether exemption of execution‑team identities from public‑records disclosure violates rights / rule 3.852 requests	Correll sought names/backgrounds, execution protocols, autopsies to support challenges	Exemption (§945.10) and precedent protect confidentiality; requests overbroad and unlikely to lead to a colorable claim	Court affirmed sustaining objections; records requests abusive/irrelevant to colorable claim
Whether midazolam‑based protocol as‑applied will cause unconstitutional risk (paradoxical reaction) and whether alternative drugs are available	Correll: medical history (alcohol/substance abuse, brain impairment) makes paradoxical reaction likely; proffers compounded pentobarbital as alternative	State: Glossip/Baze standard requires virtual certainty of severe pain and feasible alternative; defense expert opinions speculative	Rejected: circuit court’s factual findings supported; defense experts’ synergistic‑effect opinions speculative and insufficient under Baze/Glossip; alternative not shown readily available

Key Cases Cited

Correll v. State, 523 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1988) (affirming convictions and death sentences)
Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (U.S. 2015) (held midazolam challenge fails absent showing of substantial risk and viable alternative)
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (established governing standard for method‑of‑execution Eighth Amendment challenges)
Howell v. State, 133 So.3d 511 (Fla. 2014) (rejected facial and as‑applied midazolam challenges)
Muhammad v. State, 132 So.3d 176 (Fla. 2013) (denied broad public‑records requests and upheld lethal‑injection protocol)
Banks v. State, 150 So.3d 797 (Fla. 2014) (upheld use of midazolam; denied records requests)
Chavez v. Fla. SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2014) (midazolam found likely to render inmates insensate)
Davis v. State, 142 So.3d 867 (Fla. 2014) (rejected paradoxical‑reaction as‑applied claim)
Pardo v. State, 108 So.3d 558 (Fla. 2012) (rejected excessive‑delay Eighth Amendment claim)
Valle v. State, 70 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2011) (denied disclosure of execution personnel records; limits on fishing expeditions)