283 So.3d 782
Fla.2019Background
- In 1985, 14-year-old Shelly Boggio was stabbed, strangled, and drowned; James Milton Dailey was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; convictions and sentence were affirmed after remand.
- Dailey pursued multiple postconviction and federal habeas proceedings over decades; several successive 3.851 motions were denied; a death warrant was signed by the Governor on September 25, 2019.
- After the warrant, Dailey filed a third successive Rule 3.851 motion raising: (1) arbitrariness of execution (warrant/clemency/process and actual innocence), (2) newly discovered evidence plus Brady/Giglio claims (testimony/affidavits from Slater, Coleman, Howsare), (3) requests to direct DOC to accommodate defense execution witnesses, and (4) Eighth Amendment challenge for extended time on death row.
- The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on one newly discovered evidence claim but dismissed or denied parts of the motion as untimely, procedurally barred, or meritless; Dailey’s public-records requests under Rule 3.852 were also denied.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order in full, denied Dailey’s motion for stay of execution, and denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Issues
| Issue | Dailey's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrariness of execution (warrant/clemency/process and clemency hearing) | Warrant selection and clemency procedures are arbitrary; execution would be arbitrary, compounded by alleged actual innocence | Governor’s discretion and clemency process are nonjusticiable; actual innocence claim procedurally barred | Rejected: actual innocence claim barred; clemency/warrant challenges meritless under precedent; no relief |
| Newly discovered evidence / Brady (Slater) | Slater’s affidavit/testimony shows suppressed evidence pointing to codefendant Pearcy and motive, constituting Brady material | Slater’s statements are inconsistent, unconnected to case, hearsay, and were discoverable; not material | Rejected: no Brady showing, affidavit unreliable/inadmissible, untimely as witness was known |
| Newly discovered evidence / Giglio (Coleman) | Coleman’s affidavit alleges detective coached inmates and promised benefits, impeaching inmate witnesses | Evidence was discoverable long ago; Dailey had prior notice and raised related claims; no showing prosecutor knowingly used false testimony | Rejected: untimely and insufficient to prove Giglio |
| Newly discovered evidence (Howsare) | Howsare affidavit: Pearcy manipulated guards/inmates, undermining Pearcy’s credibility | Information could have been discovered earlier; no reason for delay | Rejected: untimely |
| Requests to compel DOC accommodations for execution witnesses | Denial of pad/pen, phone access, second witness, IV viewing violates Sixth and Eighth Amendments | DOC presumed to follow procedures; courts may not micromanage executive; no showing of unconstitutional policy | Rejected: separation of powers and precedent; court properly declined to order DOC accommodations |
| Public-records requests under Rule 3.852 and constitutional challenge to rule | Requests needed for postconviction claims; rule’s restrictions violate equal protection and due process | Rule 3.852 limits are reasonable to prevent fishing expeditions/delay; Dailey failed to show records would lead to admissible evidence | Rejected: denials not an abuse of discretion; rule constitutional |
| Eighth Amendment — prolonged time on death row | Adding execution after 30+ years is cruel and unusual | Precedent rejects delay-as-cruel-and-unusual claims | Rejected: follows precedent |
| Habeas claims (insufficiency, disproportionality, Hurst, ineffective assistance of collateral counsel) | Various claims challenging conviction and sentence and seeking reconsideration of barred evidence or Hurst relief | Claims were or could have been raised earlier; procedurally barred | Rejected: procedurally barred or previously rejected on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor may not knowingly present false testimony; Giglio framework)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality standard and prejudice analysis)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable-probability standard to undermine confidence in outcome)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (newly discovered evidence standards)
- Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2008) (timeliness rule for newly discovered evidence claims)
- Hannon v. State, 228 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2017) (warrant selection and public-records limits under Rule 3.852)
- Long v. State, 271 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2019) (court will not micromanage DOC execution procedures; witness-request precedent)
- Sims v. State, 753 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2000) (Rule 3.852 is not a fishing expedition; records requests limited)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Hurst constitutional principles regarding sentencing)