271 So. 3d 938
Fla.2019Background
- Robert Joe Long, a serial killer sentenced to death for the 1984 murder of Michelle Simms; death sentence final since 1993 and Long has filed multiple unsuccessful postconviction challenges.
- This appeal challenges the denial of Long’s third successive Rule 3.851 postconviction motion filed after a death warrant was signed in April 2019.
- Primary claims: (1) newly discovered neuroscience evidence (TBI/temporal lobe epilepsy/CTE/NeuroQuant) requires resentencing; (2) Eighth Amendment challenges to Florida’s lethal injection protocol (as-applied re: etomidate; three-drug protocol; etomidate generally); (3) cruel-and-unusual claim based on prolonged time on death row; (4) Hurst-related relief; (5) requests about defense execution witnesses and DOC procedures; (6) categorical exemption from execution for severe TBI/mental illness; (7) post-warrant public records production rulings.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing only on the as-applied etomidate claim; all other claims were summarily denied.
- Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial in all respects (majority opinion), with one Justice concurring in judgment but suggesting claim about execution-witness requests was not ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Long's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered neuroscience evidence (TBI/CTE/NeuroQuant) warrant resentencing | New scientific advances show brain injury/epilepsy mitigation significant enough to produce a lesser sentence | Evidence was known or discoverable earlier; prior penalty phase already presented mental-health mitigation and jury imposed death | Denied: evidence not newly discovered and would not probably yield a lesser sentence under Jones test |
| As-applied Eighth Amendment challenge to etomidate (with evidentiary hearing) | Etomidate + Long’s TBI/epilepsy creates substantial, imminent risk of severe pain and complications | DOC protocol and State experts: etomidate dose produces deep unconsciousness; risk speculative and DOC presumed to follow safeguards | Denied after hearing: court credited State experts; Long failed Baze/Glossip two-part showing |
| Challenge to three‑drug protocol vs one‑drug protocol | Three‑drug protocol is now unconstitutional under evolving standards; Florida should adopt one‑drug method | Protocol has been approved; other states’ changes don’t mandate Florida change; no substantial risk shown | Denied: precedent upholds three‑drug protocol absent showing of substantial risk |
| Broad challenge to use of etomidate without hearing (summary claim) | Etomidate itself poses unconstitutional risk; factual disputes require hearing | Prior decisions and record show no basis for an evidentiary hearing; allegations speculative | Denied summarily: claims speculative and inconsistent with precedent |
| Cruel and unusual punishment based on >30 years on death row | Additional delay plus execution constitutes Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment violation and violates international norms | Longstanding precedent rejects delay-on-row claims; claim untimely/meritless | Denied: courts have repeatedly rejected such claims |
| Hurst retroactivity / relief | Hurst requires retroactive relief from death sentence | Long previously litigated Hurst claims; successive/untimely/procedurally barred | Denied: claim untimely, successive, procedurally barred |
| Requests re: defense execution witnesses and DOC procedures | DOC should be ordered to permit specific accommodations (pen & pad, phone, extra witness, viewing IV) to protect rights | Separation of powers; DOC procedures presumed constitutional; no showing of violation | Denied: majority rejects relief on merits; concurrence would dismiss as not ripe until DOC acts |
| Categorical exemption from execution for severe TBI/mental illness | Evolving standards bar execution of persons with severe TBI/severe mental illness | Similar Eighth Amendment claims previously rejected as untimely and meritless | Denied: precedent refuses categorical exemption on these grounds |
| Post‑warrant public records production rulings | Court erred in denying access / failing to compel repository deposits or in-camera review | Requests were overbroad or unlikely to lead to colorable claims; Rule 3.852(i) distinct from (h) affidavit rule | Denied: trial court acted within discretion; production would be a fishing expedition or unlikely to yield a colorable claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 529 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988) (background and sentencing history)
- Long v. State, 610 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 1992) (penalty-phase mental-health findings)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (constitutional rule governing jury role in capital sentencing)
- Asay v. State, 224 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 2017) (Florida’s test for method-of-execution claims under Baze/Glossip)
- Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015) (Supreme Court test for method-of-execution challenges)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (plurality) (Eighth Amendment method-of-execution standard)
- Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019) (reinforcing burden in method-of-execution claims)
- Jimenez v. State, 265 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 2018) (recent Florida precedent denying lethal-injection/etomidate claims)
- Muhammad v. State, 132 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 2013) (limitations on public-records requests and presumption of DOC compliance)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (two‑prong test for newly discovered evidence in capital cases)