Pardo v. State
108 So. 3d 558
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Pardo, a prisoner under sentence and active death warrant, faced nine counts of first‑degree murder based on five 1986 killings.
- At trial he testified against counsel and admitted to all nine murders, claiming victims were drug dealers unworthy of life.
- Jury recommended death for each count; trial court imposed nine death sentences, which this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Pardo subsequently pursued postconviction relief; after an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief and this Court denied rehearing.
- On October 30, 2012, Governor Scott signed a death warrant; execution was scheduled for December 11, 2012.
- Pardo filed a successive motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851; the circuit court summarily denied relief, and Pardo appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lethal injection protocol constitutionality | Pardo: pentobarbital onset slower; new drugs risk; tainted supply; possible improper mixing. | State: claims are time‑barred and legally insufficient; Valle governs and supports denial. | Denied; claims rejected as speculative; protocol upheld. |
| Public records requests and access | Pardo: records needed to evaluate lethal injection procedures. | State: requests speculative; no evidence records would reveal imminent harm. | Denied; circuit court did not abuse discretion. |
| Competency to stand trial | Pardo: alleged incompetence not fully developed; should be revisited. | State: claim procedurally barred; prior findings upheld. | Procedurally barred; affirmed denial. |
| Clemency proceedings adequacy | Pardo: clemency process unfair; evidence and witnesses denied; time lapse insufficient. | State: clemency is executive and not subject to re‑litigation; prior proceedings valid. | Denied; clemency proceedings within executive prerogative. |
| Cruel and unusual punishment from time on death row | Pardo: 24+ years on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. | State: long delay does not establish Eighth Amendment violation; precedent forecloses. | Denied; long‑delay arguments rejected by settled Florida precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valle v. State, 70 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2011) (new‑evidence analysis for recent drug substitutions; heavy burden remains)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (heavy burden to show substantial risk of serious harm)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (requires substantial risk of serious harm for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Gore v. State, 91 So.3d 769 (Fla. 2012) (procedural/merits standards for postconviction review and eligibility)
- Pardo v. State, 941 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 2006) (procedural bars and prior denial of relief in direct/postconviction)