Paul Augustus Howell v. State of Florida
133 So. 3d 511
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Howell, sentenced to death for murder, faces execution after a 2013 death warrant was reset for 2014.
- He filed an amended third successive postconviction motion challenging Florida's 2013 lethal injection protocol (midazolam-first, three-drug sequence).
- Claims include Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment challenges to midazolam, the three-drug protocol, forced vecuronium, protocol changes, and discovery issues.
- The postconviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing; Howell appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Court reaffirmed the denial, applying the standard from Baze and related Florida precedent to evaluate the lethal injection challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden standard for new drug protocol | Howell urges a burden-shifting standard favoring evidence by the State. | State argues to apply Baze-based heavy burden on inmate to show risk. | Standard consistent with Baze is applied; no burden shift to State. |
| Use of midazolam as first drug | Midazolam is unconstitutional under as-applied and general challenges. | Evidence shows 500 mg renders unconscious/insensate with proper checks. | Denied; midazolam does not violate the Eighth Amendment under this record. |
| Three-drug vs one-drug protocol | A one-drug protocol would be preferable; three-drug protocol may violate rights. | Three-drug protocol is permissible; prior precedents upheld changes. | Rejected; No constitutional violation found; standard precedent followed. |
| Forced administration of vecuronium | Forcing vecuronium violates Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. | Eighth Amendment challenge already rejected; Fourteenth adds Sell concerns not met. | Denied; no due process violation established. |
| Constant protocol changes and experimentation | Frequent changes amount to unlawful human experimentation. | Changes are within executive discretion and subject to Baze framework. | Denied; not a constitutional violation under governing standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (heavy burden to show substantial and imminent risk of serious harm)
- Pardo v. State, 108 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 2012) (Florida adopts Baze standard for lethal injection challenges)
- Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2011) (upheld change to pentobarbital under heavy-burden framework)
- Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2007) (analyze current protocol to determine constitutionality, not micromanage executive actions)
- Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2000) (early framework for lethal injection challenges before direct U.S. Supreme Court guidance)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (four-factor test for compelled medical treatment in different context)
- Diaz v. Diaz, 630 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2011) (Sell-related considerations in compelled medical context; applicable analyses quoted)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (reinstatement/rationale for procedural postconviction relief considerations cited in discussion)