Delgado v. Florida Department of Corrections
659 F.3d 1311
11th Cir.2011Background
- Delgado was initially convicted in 1994 of two counts of first-degree murder, armed burglary, and felon-in-possession, but convictions were set aside on appeal.
- In 2004, Delgado was retried and again convicted of two counts of first-degree murder; direct appeal and federal habeas were denied.
- Delgado I held the burglary theory was legally inadequate and remanded for retrial, but did not acquit Delgado of first-degree murder.
- Delgado II held the State’s premeditated-murder theory not factually insufficient; Delgado could be retried on that theory alongside other theories.
- At trial, the jury received alternative theories for murder and burglary, but returned a general verdict on all counts.
- Delgado’s central issue on habeas was whether retrial for premeditated murder violated the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does retrial on premeditated murder violate double jeopardy? | Delgado: retrial for same offense violates double jeopardy. | Florida: no second jeopardy under federal law; prior ruling was a legal, not factual, error. | No double jeopardy violation; retrial permissible. |
| Did Delgado I constitute an acquittal of felony murder/burglary? | Delgado: Delgado I acquitted him of felony murder and burglary. | Florida: I did not acquit on the facts; it found the theory legally inadequate and remanded. | Delgado I did not acquit on felony murder/burglary; Burks exception not triggered. |
| Does Burks continuing-jeopardy principle apply to this case? | Delgado: Burks exception bars retrial after legal error in Delgado I. | Florida: Ball rule governs; no Burks-triggered barred retrial because the error was legal, not evidentiary. | Burks exception did not apply; retrial allowed under Ball framework. |
| Is collateral estoppel exhausted or separately cognizable? | Delgado: collateral estoppel supports bar to retrial. | Florida: collateral estoppel not applicable as a separate claim; exhausted or waived. | Collateral estoppel analysis denied; petition denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (1896) (retrial after appellate reversal generally not barred)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy bars retry after evidentiary insufficiency)
- Lydon v. Boston Municipal Court, 466 U.S. 294 (1984) (continuing jeopardy concept in Ball framework)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (same-elements/lesser-included concepts in double jeopardy)
- Martin Linen Supply Co. v. Scial, 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (acquittal defined as resolution of some elements of offense)
- Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 (1889) (elements-based approach to successive prosecutions)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (same-elements vs. same-conduct framework)
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (overruled Grady; Blockburger remains governing test)
- Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 (1970) (continuing jeopardy upon reversal for trial error)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (Burks-like analysis when verdict set aside for trial error)