Randall T. Deviney v. State of Florida, 322 So.3d 563

Background

Randall Deviney was convicted of the August 5, 2008 first‑degree murder of Dolores Futrell; guilt-phase evidence included DNA under the victim’s fingernails, a custodial confession, and detailed forensic testimony about defensive wounds and a fatal neck incision.
This Court previously remanded for a new penalty phase (Hurst-related); a new penalty jury unanimously found three aggravators (felony during commission, HAC, PVV), found aggravators sufficient and outweighing mitigation, and recommended death.
The trial court sentenced Deviney to death and assigned great weight to each statutory aggravator while assigning varying weight to numerous mitigators.
On appeal Deviney raised five principal claims: denial of cause challenges to two prospective jurors (Sutherland and Henderson); failure to instruct the jury that sufficiency/weight determinations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; Roper-based challenge to death as applied to those under 21; and challenges to the PVV and HAC aggravator instructions/findings.
The Court affirmed the death sentence: it rejected the Roper expansion, upheld the jury instructions (no beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt requirement for sufficiency/weight), found competent substantial evidence for PVV and HAC, and (by plurality) found no reversible error in denying cause challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Deviney)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Trial court denied cause challenges to prospective jurors Sutherland and Henderson	Jurors expressed predisposition to impose death for premeditated murder; reasonable doubt existed about impartiality so they should have been excused for cause	Trial court reasonably rehabilitated jurors on the record; denial was within discretion and supported by voir dire	Denial of challenges upheld as non‑abuse of discretion for Sutherland and (plurality) for Henderson; concurrence and dissent would find Henderson’s denial erroneous but either harmless or requiring different remedial rule
Jury instruction: must aggravators be proven sufficient/ outweighing mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt?	Deviney: failure to instruct that sufficiency/weight require BARD is fundamental error	State: sufficiency/weight are not elements and not subject to BARD per controlling precedent	Denied — Court reaffirmed that sufficiency and weight determinations are not subject to beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard
Roper claim: bar death for offenders under 21	Deviney: Roper’s Eighth Amendment analysis should be extended to those under 21 given evolving standards and state practice	State: Roper fixes the cutoff at 18; Supreme Court and this Court precedent maintain 18 as the relevant threshold	Denied — Court reiterated Roper establishes 18 as the constitutional cutoff; no expansion to 21
PVV aggravator instruction and finding	Deviney: PVV was improper as applied/instructed	State: record shows victim’s age, disability (MS), and 47‑year age disparity support PVV; Deviney agreed to instruction at trial	Denied — Deviney waived contemporaneous objection and competent, substantial evidence supports PVV finding
HAC aggravator instruction and finding	Deviney: HAC improperly found/instructed	State: evidence (fatal neck slash; defensive wounds; victim conscious for a period; defendant’s admissions) supports HAC	Denied — Deviney agreed to instruction; trial court’s HAC finding supported by evidence of conscious suffering and struggle

Key Cases Cited

Deviney v. State, 213 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 2017) (prior opinion remanding for new penalty phase)
Deviney v. State, 112 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 2013) (prior reversal for Miranda violations)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (basis for remand of penalty phase)
State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020) (clarifying Hurst-related doctrine)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment prohibition on death penalty for offenders under 18)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless‑error framework under §924.33)
Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990) (per se reversal rule for erroneous denial of cause challenges)
Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988) (peremptory challenges are not of constitutional dimension)
Campbell v. State, 159 So. 3d 814 (Fla. 2015) (analysis of HAC where consciousness/awareness was ambiguous)
Elam v. State, 636 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1994) (HAC analysis where suffering was brief or unconscious)