Gore v. State, 91 So. 3d 769

Gore, a death-sentenced inmate, sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.851; the circuit court summarily denied all claims in 2012.
Gore’s claims included clemency process fairness, the Governor’s unfettered timing to sign death warrants, newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, and cruel and unusual punishment due to death-row duration.
Historical facts: Gore was convicted in 1984 of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery; the death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal, with subsequent federal relief proceedings leading to a resentencing in 1992 and later state postconviction actions.
The 2012 clemency update followed earlier clemency proceedings; Gore argued it was one-sided and violated due process.
Gore invoked Martinez v. Ryan (2012) as a basis to challenge counsel in collateral review, but Florida courts denied relief, concluding Martinez did not apply to state postconviction review in this context.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary denial, concluding Gore was not entitled to relief under Martinez and that the remaining claims lacked merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Newly discovered evidence.	Udell’s disbarment constitutes newly discovered evidence.	Disbarment is not likely to yield a less severe sentence and is not properly tied to resentencing.	No relief; denial affirmed.
Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel under Martinez.	Martinez creates a new independent claim for ineffective collateral counsel.	Martinez does not apply to Florida state collateral review; Gore had full review previously.	Martinez provides no basis for relief.
Clemency process fairness and notice.	2012 clemency update was arbitrary and deprived due process.	Governor’s clemency is an executive function with unfettered discretion; no mandated procedures violated.	No relief; denial affirmed.
Governor's power to sign death warrants.	Governor’s standardless discretion renders the scheme unconstitutional.	Discretion is consistent with precedent and separation of powers.	No relief; denial affirmed.
Cruel and unusual punishment based on time on death row.	Long death-row time constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.	Already rejected; time on death row does not by itself violate the Eighth Amendment.	No relief; denial affirmed.

Walton v. State, 3 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 2009) (standard for summarily denied postconviction relief)
Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (two-prong test for newly discovered evidence (Jones II))
Marek v. State, 14 So.3d 985 (Fla. 2009) (requires probable sentence impact for new evidence)
Johnston v. State, 27 So.3d 11 (Fla. 2010) (clemency procedures; no mandatory process; no second proceeding required)
Kearse v. State, 75 So.3d 1244 (Fla. 2011) (newly discovered evidence impeachment; credibility issues; impact on outcome limited)
Gore v. State, 964 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 2007) (predecessor denial of 3.850 claim; prejudice analysis tied to Nickerson testimony)
Bundy v. State, 497 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 1986) (separation of powers; executive clemency discretion)
Glock v. Moore, 776 So.2d 243 (Fla. 2001) (cited for clemency process precedent)
Valle v. State, 70 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2011) (Florida capital punishment framework and standards)