Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530

Valle, condemned prisoner, was under a death sentence and faced a June 2011 death warrant; the DOC substituted pentobarbital for sodium thiopental in its 3-drug protocol and Valle challenged its Eighth Amendment validity.
Valle pursued postconviction relief (Rule 3.851), including an Eighth Amendment challenge to the revised lethal-injection protocol; a two-day evidentiary hearing was held.
The circuit court denied relief; the Florida Supreme Court granted a stay to review the pentobarbital issue and ordered limited discovery and presentation of correspondence from the drug manufacturer.
The Court reaffirmed Lightbourne’s framework and adopted the Baze standard requiring a substantial risk of serious harm; the circuit court’s findings regarding the pentobarbital dose and anesthesia were reviewed for substantial evidence.
Witness credibility and evidentiary rulings during relinquishment were reviewed; Lundbeck letters were deemed legally irrelevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry and the court preserved discretion over admission of certain public records.
The Court ultimately affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Valle’s postconviction relief on all asserted grounds, including Eighth Amendment challenges, public records requests, and Vienna Convention claims.
The procedural posture included a prior history of multiple postconviction and habeas petitions, but the Court limited its current review to the issues framed by the relinquishment order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of pentobarbital substitution under Eighth Amendment	Valle argues pentobarbital renders consciousness and causes pain	State argues no substantial risk of serious harm; evidence supports anesthesia	Valle fails to prove sure/very likely to cause serious harm; protocol constitutional
Evidentiary hearing and relinquishment rulings	Valle contends adverse rulings tainted hearing	Rulings within court’s discretion and scope of relinquishment were proper	Rulings upheld; no abuse of discretion
Public records requests denial tied to Eighth Amendment claim	Disclosure would reveal evidence of unsafe procurement/administration	Requests overly broad; not colorably linked to the claim	Denied; properly within circuit court’s discretion
Clemency proceeding denial and counsel effectiveness	Valle asserts denial or ineffective clemency process	Speculative and inadequately pled; no due process violation shown	Denied; speculative and insufficient pled cannot warrant relief
Vienna Convention consular notification	Failure to notify consulate violated Vienna Convention Article 36	Procedurally barred and merits fail	Procedurally barred and meritless; affirmed denial

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (establishes heavy burden for risk-based challenges to lethal injection)
Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2007) (upheld Florida’s 2007 protocol under risk-based standards)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (risk of future harm must be substantial and imminent)