265 So. 3d 462
Fla.2018Background
- In 1992 Jose Antonio Jimenez was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary and sentenced to death; convictions were final in 1998 after certiorari was denied.
- Following extensive state and federal litigation, Governor Rick Scott signed a death warrant on July 18, 2018, prompting post-warrant public-records requests and two successive postconviction filings (a fifth and a sixth successive Rule 3.851 motion).
- NMPD, which investigated the murder, submitted an updated unredacted file to the repository in July 2018; Jimenez’s counsel discovered 81 pages of handwritten materials not previously disclosed.
- Jimenez filed (1) a fifth successive motion raising public-records and Eighth Amendment challenges to Florida’s three‑drug lethal injection protocol (etomidate as first drug) and a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, and (2) a sixth successive motion alleging Brady, Giglio, discovery, and due‑process violations based on the newly disclosed NMPD materials and sought to amend that motion.
- The postconviction court summarily denied the fifth and sixth successive motions, denied the motion to amend, and denied the Rule 3.800(a) motion; Jimenez appealed and this Court reviewed and affirmed all denials and lifted the stay of execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-records production under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.852 | Jimenez: post-warrant requests (including DOC, FDLE, medical examiner, and NMPD) were necessary to frame claims; newly disclosed NMPD pages show withheld material. | State: Rule 3.852 limits post-warrant requests to agencies previously asked; many requests were untimely, overbroad, or unlikely to lead to a colorable claim; NMPD had previously submitted records. | Court: No abuse of discretion; many requests procedurally barred or unlikely to lead to a colorable claim; NMPD’s disclosure did not change analysis. |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to use of etomidate / three‑drug protocol | Jimenez: Branch execution and etomidate effects show substantial risk of severe pain; a one‑drug protocol (or other alternatives) is less risky. | State: Asay VI upheld current protocol; Branch reactions may reflect transient reactions; defendant must show substantial risk and identify a known, available, less painful alternative per Glossip. | Court: Denied; speculative allegations about Branch insufficient to revisit Asay VI; Jimenez failed Glossip’s burden to identify a feasible alternative. |
| Length-of-time on death row as cruel and unusual punishment | Jimenez: Over 23 years on death row makes execution cruel and unusual in evolving standards. | State: Longstanding precedent rejects long‑term incarceration plus execution as Eighth Amendment violation. | Court: Denied; precedent forecloses claim. |
| Brady/Giglio/discovery/due-process claims from 81 pages of NMPD notes; motion to amend | Jimenez: Newly discovered handwritten notes show suppressed exculpatory/impeaching evidence (seven subclaims) warranting relief or an evidentiary hearing; amendment should be allowed. | State: Most items were not newly discovered or were known/available with due diligence; many documents are neither exculpatory nor impeaching; defense had or could have obtained much of the information; Giglio inapplicable where false testimony was not presented. | Court: Denied motion to amend (harmless even if error) and summarily denied the sixth successive motion; all seven subclaims procedurally barred or without merit; no material Brady/Giglio violation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Asay v. State, 224 So.3d 695 (Fla. 2017) (upholding Florida’s current three‑drug protocol with etomidate as first drug)
- Jimenez v. State, 997 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 2008) (prior successive‑postconviction litigation and discussion of newly discovered evidence timing)
- Hannon v. State, 228 So.3d 505 (Fla. 2017) (public‑records request limits and denial of lethal‑injection related records)
- Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (U.S. 2015) (method‑of‑execution framework: substantial risk and burden to identify known, available, less‑painful alternative)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (State’s duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor’s knowing presentation of false testimony and materiality standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (cumulative Brady analysis)
- Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248 (Fla. 2016) (Brady materiality explained and application)