& SC16-1090 Michael Duane Zack, III v. State of Florida and Michael Duane Zack, III v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
228 So. 3d 41
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Michael D. Zack III was convicted (1997) of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and robbery for the 1996 killing of Ravonne Smith; jury recommended death 11–1 and the trial court sentenced him to death.
- Zack confessed; forensic and eyewitness evidence detailed a violent sexual assault and stabbing; trial court found six aggravators and gave little weight to several mitigators.
- On direct appeal and initial postconviction review, courts rejected claims including Atkins-based intellectual disability; recorded IQ scores ranged from 79–92 (one childhood score 92; adult scores 84, 86, 79, 80).
- After Atkins and Hall developments, Zack filed successive 3.851 motions asserting intellectual disability under Hall; trial court summarily denied relief; state courts and federal courts consistently found his IQ scores above the statutory threshold.
- Zack also sought habeas relief claiming Hurst error; the Court denied Hurst relief because his conviction and sentence were final before Ring and Hurst are not applied retroactively to cases final before Ring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zack was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on intellectual disability under Hall | Zack: Hall requires a holistic assessment and an evidentiary hearing because IQ scores near the cutoff permit additional evidence to show disability | State: Zack’s IQ scores are all outside the test’s standard error band, so the first prong (significantly subaverage functioning) fails and no Hall hearing is required | Court: Affirmed summary denial — Zack’s scores are outside the Hall margin of error, so he failed prong one and no hearing required |
| Whether the trial court improperly dismissed Zack’s claim by focusing on IQ without considering other prongs under Hall | Zack: Trial court should have considered adaptive deficits and onset age in tandem with IQ | State: Hall permits broader consideration only when IQ falls within the standard error band; here scores fall outside that band | Court: Affirmed — competent substantial evidence supports finding Zack not intellectually disabled because all IQ scores exceed the standard error range |
| Whether Zack is entitled to Hurst relief (habeas) | Zack: Hurst v. Florida requires jury findings and so his death sentence is unconstitutional under Hurst | State: Zack’s conviction and sentence were final before Ring/Hurst, so Hurst is not retroactive to his case | Court: Denied habeas relief — Hurst does not apply retroactively to cases final before Ring/Hurst |
| Standard of review for summary denial of postconviction claims | Zack: (implicit) trial court erred as a matter of law in denying without holistic review | State: Summary denial is proper if claim is legally insufficient or positively refuted by the record; review is de novo | Court: Applied de novo review and affirmed — claim positively refuted by record (IQ scores) |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of intellectually disabled persons)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (IQ is a condition, not a number; consider margin of error and holistic assessment)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (jury must make critical findings supporting death sentence; Sixth Amendment implications)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (capital sentencing requires jury finding of aggravating factors)
- Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2000) (direct-appeal opinion describing facts, conviction, and sentencing)
- Asay v. State, 210 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (held Hurst not retroactive to cases final before Ring)
- Oats v. State, 181 So.3d 457 (Fla. 2015) (Hall requires conjunctive consideration of intellectual disability prongs)