Dennis T. Glover v. State of Florida
226 So. 3d 795
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Victim Sandra Allen was found dead in her trailer on May 30, 2012, with multiple stab wounds, manual strangulation, blunt-force injuries, and partial removal of clothing; death occurred within minutes.
- Neighbors observed Dennis Glover near the victim’s trailer multiple times the morning of the body discovery; one neighbor saw a man matching Glover’s description enter the trailer earlier.
- Glover’s touch DNA was recovered from the victim’s head, neck, and left hand; the victim’s blood was on the tops of Glover’s shoes.
- The State relied on circumstantial evidence to prosecute Glover for first-degree premeditated murder; no murder weapon was recovered.
- Glover was convicted by a jury and later faced a penalty phase where the jury recommended death by a 10–2 vote; the trial court found Glover not intellectually disabled after an evidentiary hearing and imposed death.
- On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence due to Hurst error (nonunanimous jury recommendation), and remanded for a new penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Glover) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (identity & premeditation) | Evidence (DNA on victim, blood on shoes, eyewitnesss placing Glover near trailer) supports identity and premeditation | Alternative hypothesis: consensual sexual contact or third‑party (drug dealer) perpetrator; blood on shoes could be innocent | Conviction affirmed; circumstantial evidence sufficient under the reasonable‑hypothesis standard to support identity and premeditation |
| Exclusion of victim’s drug‑use evidence | Exclusion proper because defense theory was speculative and State’s motion in limine barred drug evidence absent opening of issue | Drug use evidence would support third‑party murderer theory (dealer present) | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion because defense did not develop the theory at trial and evidence was speculative |
| Nelson inquiry re: counsel effectiveness | No specific claim of incompetence requiring Nelson inquiry | Glover asserted discovery/communication complaints that he says should have triggered inquiry | No Nelson hearing required; complaints were generalized and did not trigger inquiry |
| Intellectual disability (Atkins/Hall) | Trial court properly applied Hall, considered IQs and adaptive functioning, and found competent, substantial evidence that Glover is not intellectually disabled | Glover argued IQ scores within SEM and other evidence support intellectual disability, urging Hall application and challenge to reliance on higher prior IQ | Trial court’s finding affirmed—court considered all three prongs per Hall and gave deference to credibility determinations |
| Hurst error (jury unanimity for death) | N/A (State previously relied on existing Florida procedure) | Glover argued Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State require jury unanimous findings and unanimous recommendation; his 10–2 recommendation violated Hurst | Court held Hurst error occurred and was not harmless; death sentence vacated and case remanded for new penalty phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodgkins v. State, 175 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 2015) (standards for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977) (reasonable‑hypothesis‑of‑innocence rule for circumstantial evidence)
- Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. ???) (circumstantial‑evidence principles cited by Florida courts)
- Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2002) (premeditation may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1993) (factors from which premeditation may be inferred)
- Perry v. State, 801 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2001) (multiple stab wounds and fatal blows can support premeditation)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (U.S. 2014) (Florida’s IQ cutoff violated Eighth Amendment; SEM and adaptive evidence must be considered)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (bar on executing intellectually disabled)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Sixth Amendment requires jury findings for death sentence)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida’s application of Hurst requiring unanimous jury findings and unanimous recommendation)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional and constitutional errors in sentencing)
- Oats v. State, 181 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 2015) (standard of review and Hall application in intellectual‑disability determinations)
- Calloway v. State, 210 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 2017) (new rules on direct review apply to pending cases)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (standards for intellectual‑disability determinations under evolving medical guidance)