246 So. 3d 246
Fla.2018Background
- Jason Walton was convicted and sentenced to death for three execution-style murders during robbery/burglary; his death sentences became final in 1990.
- Walton pursued multiple rounds of direct appeal and postconviction relief (rules 3.850/3.851), including challenges based on ineffective assistance, newly discovered evidence, and changes in capital sentencing law; courts repeatedly denied relief.
- Walton's later filings argued that his codefendant Richard Cooper's resentencing to life (newly discovered evidence) combined with changes in Florida law (Hurst-related decisions) would likely produce life sentences for Walton on retrial.
- The postconviction court found Cooper's resentencing to be newly discovered evidence but concluded it would not probably produce a life sentence for Walton; that denial was appealed.
- Walton also asserted proportionality claims (relying on McCloud) based on disparities with codefendants, and raised Eighth Amendment/retroactivity Hurst claims in a habeas petition.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied the habeas petition, holding Hurst does not apply retroactively to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulative analysis for newly discovered evidence must include changes in law (Hurst) | Walton: cumulative Swafford/Hildwin analysis should consider legal changes; combined effect would likely yield life | State: changes in law are not "newly discovered evidence" and retroactivity is governed by Witt/Asay V | Court: Rejects Walton; cumulative analysis does not convert decisional law into newly discovered facts; Hurst not applicable retroactively to Walton |
| Whether Cooper's resentencing is newly discovered evidence that would probably produce a lesser sentence for Walton | Walton: Cooper's life sentence materially weakens case; combined with Hurst changes makes life probable | State: Cooper's resentencing does not probably lead to Walton's life sentence on retrial | Court: Postconviction court correctly found Cooper's resentencing was newly discovered but insufficient to satisfy second Jones prong |
| Proportionality claim comparing Walton to codefendants (McCloud) | Walton: Death sentences disproportionate given codefendants received life | State: Other codefendants got life for legal reasons (plea or legal error) making comparisons irrelevant | Court: McCloud inapplicable; codefendants' lesser sentences resulted from legal reasons unrelated to relative culpability; prior holdings show Walton more culpable |
| Retroactivity and Eighth Amendment Hurst claims in habeas | Walton: Hurst and related holdings require relief; Asay V retroactivity cutoff is incorrect | State: Hurst does not apply retroactively to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring; Asay V controls | Court: Denies habeas; follows Asay V and Hitchcock—Hurst is not retroactive to Walton |
Key Cases Cited
- Swafford v. State, 125 So.3d 760 (Fla. 2013) (explains cumulative analysis for newly discovered evidence under Jones)
- Hildwin v. State, 141 So.3d 1178 (Fla. 2014) (applies cumulative newly discovered evidence test where DNA excluded defendant)
- Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (Jones II) (defines two-prong newly discovered evidence standard)
- Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (Jones I) (second-prong standard for newly discovered evidence when challenging sentence)
- Asay v. State, 210 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (Asay V) (holds Hurst is not retroactive to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring)
- Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017) (reaffirms Asay V retroactivity rule for Hurst)
- McCloud v. State, 208 So.3d 668 (Fla. 2016) (clarifies when codefendant sentences are relevant to proportionality)
- Walton v. State, 847 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2003) (prior postconviction decision addressing Walton's claims and counsel performance)