Patrick C. Hannon v. State of Florida and
228 So. 3d 505
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Patrick Hannon was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- His case became final in 1995 after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari; he has pursued multiple rounds of state and federal postconviction relief, all previously denied.
- While facing an active death warrant (signed Nov. 8, 2017), Hannon filed third- and fourth-successive Rule 3.851 motions raising (inter alia) Hurst-related claims, Eighth Amendment challenges to Florida’s three‑drug lethal injection protocol, a challenge to the Governor’s warrant‑signing power, proportionality claims comparing codefendants’ sentences, and public‑records requests about execution procedures.
- The circuit court denied both the third and fourth successive motions without an evidentiary hearing; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed those denials and also denied Hannon’s requests for stays of execution.
- The majority concluded Hannon presented no new or colorable evidence to overcome legal precedents approving the lethal injection protocol, rejecting his “veil of secrecy”/material‑records claims, reiterating that Hurst is not retroactive to convictions final before Ring, and holding proportionality and other claims procedurally barred or meritless.
- Justice Pariente dissented, arguing Hurst should apply retroactively to Hannon, that counsel’s failure to investigate mitigation was prejudicial (warranting resentencing), and that Caldwell/proportionality concerns support relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of lethal injection protocol | Current three‑drug protocol and DOC secrecy create substantial Eighth Amendment risk | Protocol previously approved by this Court; DOC presumed to follow protocol; no new evidence of deviations | Denied — no new evidence; protocol previously approved; secrecy claim fails to overcome presumption of proper performance |
| Governor’s warrant‑signing power | Warrant‑signing practice unconstitutional; Hurst requires revisit | Governor has longstanding statutory authority; Hurst does not affect warrant eligibility | Denied — claim foreclosed by precedent; Hurst does not change warrant‑eligibility analysis |
| Proportionality vis‑à‑vis codefendants | Sentences disproportionate because codefendant received lesser punishment | Hannon was more culpable (triggerman; inflicted fatal wounds); claim previously rejected and untimely | Denied — procedurally barred and without merit; prior findings of greater culpability stand |
| Public records and "veil of secrecy" requests | Requests for drug sourcing, past execution records, and unwritten changes necessary to develop Eighth Amendment claim | Requests are overbroad, unlikely to yield a colorable claim, and were made too late; presumption DOC will follow protocol | Denied — abuse of discretion standard not met; requests did not show relation to colorable claim and were untimely |
| Hurst retroactivity and related claims | Hurst and chapter 2017‑1 require retroactive relief; error not harmless | Hurst not retroactive to convictions final before Ring (pre‑2002); precedent rejects these claims | Denied — Hurst relief unavailable; prior retroactivity cutoff controls; no harmless‑error review needed here |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannon v. State, 638 So.2d 39 (Fla. 1994) (direct‑appeal opinion affirming convictions and death sentences)
- Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 2006) (postconviction decision addressing mitigation and other claims)
- Asay v. State, 224 So.3d 695 (Fla. 2017) (approving Florida’s three‑drug lethal injection protocol)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (announcing Florida’s Hurst rule on jury factfinding at sentencing)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (holding jury must find aggravating facts supporting capital punishment)
- Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2007) (presumption that DOC will follow execution protocols)
- Valle v. State, 70 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2011) (records of prior executions and drug sourcing generally not related to a colorable Eighth Amendment claim)
- Muhammad v. State, 132 So.3d 176 (Fla. 2013) (denying expansive disclosure of lethal‑injection sourcing; presumption DOC will comply with protocol)
- Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017) (addressing Hurst‑related procedural issues and retroactivity)
- Sims v. State, 753 So.2d 66 (Fla. 2000) (Rule 3.852 records requests are not a vehicle for eleventh‑hour fishing expeditions)