Lambrix v. State, 124 So. 3d 890

Background

Cary Michael Lambrix was convicted of two 1983 first-degree murders and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Lambrix filed numerous successive state postconviction motions, federal habeas petitions, and extraordinary writs; prior successive claims were repeatedly rejected as meritless.
The Court consolidated three matters: denial of Lambrix’s fourth successive Rule 3.851 motion (SC10-1845) based on alleged FDLE hair evidence; denial of his fifth successive Rule 3.851 motion (SC12-6) claiming newly discovered mitigation (military injury and resulting substance abuse); and a petition for writ of prohibition (SC11-1845) challenging denial of a motion to disqualify the postconviction judge.
Fourth-motion claims: seek DNA testing of two hairs found with the murder weapon, newly discovered FDLE notes, Brady/Giglio disclosure violations, denial of self-representation, and denial of judge disqualification based on a court staff attorney’s alleged involvement.
Fifth-motion claim: newly located ex-wife and expert evidence about a basic-training injury and resulting substance abuse asserted as new mitigation that would likely produce a life sentence.
The postconviction court either held evidentiary hearings (disqualification) or summarily denied relief; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed all denials as procedurally barred or substantively without merit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Request for DNA testing of hairs on tire iron	Hairs may match State witness Frances Smith; testing could exonerate or undermine testimony	Hairs consistent with Smith are expected because she was at scene and handled the weapon; testing would not exonerate or mitigate	Denied — Lambrix failed to show how testing would probably exonerate or lessen sentence; denial affirmed
Newly discovered FDLE notes/evidence re: hairs and shirt	FDLE records newly discovered and would produce acquittal or mitigation	Evidence is not newly discovered in a way that would probably produce acquittal; cannot show timing or source of hairs	Denied — evidence does not meet standard for newly discovered evidence
Brady/Giglio nondisclosure claim	State failed to disclose FDLE materials favorable to defense or impeachment of witness	Allegations speculative; no showing of favorable, suppressed, or material evidence	Denied — Lambrix failed to satisfy any Brady/Giglio prong
Right to proceed pro se in postconviction proceedings	Lambrix sought to discharge counsel and waive counsel to proceed pro se	State/CCC R: no constitutional right to self-representation at this stage; allowing pro se would delay and enable meritless filings; court may restrict when necessary	Denied — court properly balanced rights, administrative interests, and Lambrix’s pattern; waiver not permitted
Motion to disqualify judge based on staff attorney ties	Staff attorney for circuit court had previously worked for or assisted Lambrix, creating need for disqualification	Hearing evidence refuted or failed to establish involvement; adverse rulings and prior prosecutor employment alone do not require recusal	Denied — record does not clearly refute successor judge’s denial; evidentiary hearing supported denial
Newly discovered mitigation (military injury/ex-wife) — fifth motion	Newly located ex-wife and expert show a basic-training injury caused chronic pain and substance abuse; would likely lead to life sentence	Lambrix and counsel knew of injury earlier; claim is time-barred, successive, and would not probably change sentencing given aggravators	Denied — untimely and procedurally barred; no reasonable probability mitigation would outweigh aggravators

Key Cases Cited

Lambrix v. State, 39 So.3d 260 (Fla. 2010) (summary of Lambrix’s prior successive postconviction history)
Lambrix v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1986) (direct-appeal affirmance of convictions and death sentences)
Van Poyck v. State, 961 So.2d 220 (Fla. 2007) (standard of review for DNA testing denials)
Scott v. State, 46 So.3d 529 (Fla. 2009) (defendant must explain how DNA testing would exonerate or mitigate)
Wyatt v. State, 78 So.3d 512 (Fla. 2011) (standards for newly discovered evidence in postconviction relief)
Kokal v. State, 901 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2005) (review of successor judge’s denial of disqualification)
Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2001) (balancing self-representation rights with reliability and administration in capital cases)
Gordon v. State, 75 So.3d 200 (Fla. 2011) (policy considerations limiting pro se appeals in death penalty postconviction)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2009) (prejudice analysis for mitigation failure; distinguished on facts)