record on appeal - fl courts · 11/04/1988 court appearance record prepared ... subpoena for...

JOHNSON, EMANUEL

APPELLANT

VS

STATE OF FLORIDA APPELLEE

APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT IN

AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA,

THE HONORABLE DEBRA JOHNES RIVA,

PRESIDING JUDGE

L.T. CASE NO: 1988 CF 003198 NC

1988 CF 003199 NC

H.T. CASE NO: SC17-1401

RECORD ON APPEAL

vickersj

Rectangular Exhibit Stamp

07/06/2016 APPEARANCE RECORD (121)

07/07/2016 ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF RECORD (122 - 123)

01/06/2017 DEFENDANT;S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (HURST V. FLORIDA)

(124 - 153)

01/31/2017 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE POSTCONVICTION MOTION

(154 - 155)

03/10/2017 STATE'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF

(156 - 186)

04/06/2017 ORDER RE-ASSIGNING CASE AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

(187 - 188)

07/03/2017 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

(189 - 197)

07/26/2017 APPEAL - NOTICE (198 - 199)

07/26/2017 APPEAL - DIRECTIONS TO CLERK (200 - 201)

07/26/2017 APPEAL - DESIGNATION TO COURT REPORTER (202 - 203)

07/31/2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY APPELLATE COURT OF NEW APPEAL CASE / SC17-1401

(204)

08/21/2017 TRANSCRIPT - APPEAL - APRIL 10, 2017 (205 - 213)

06/13/2016 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING (214)

07/06/2016 APPEARANCE RECORD (215)

07/07/2016 ORDER GRANTING DEFEDNANT'S MOTION TO TRANSCRIBE DEPOSITIONS AND FOR PAYMENT OF THE COURT REPORTER FEES

(216 - 217)

01/26/2017 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (218 - 220)


(221 - 222)

07/26/2017 APPEAL - NOTICE (223 - 224)

Progress Docket for Case:1988 CF 003198 NC, 1988 CF 003199 NC JOHNSON, EMANUEL JOHNSON, EMANUEL

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA

Date Docket Description/Text

10/12/1988 ARREST WARRANT FILED

10/12/1988 PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT FILED

10/12/1988 CASE FILED WITH CLERK

10/13/1988 BOOKING REPORT FILED RET DATE 110488

10/13/1988 EXECUTED WARRANT 101188

10/13/1988 ADVISORY HEARING BAIL SET-NONE-BURG WHILE ARMED

10/24/1988 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT RULE 3.216

11/04/1988 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: CT #1

11/04/1988 ARMED BURGLARY-NO ACTION TAKEN BY COURT RE: BOND

11/04/1988 REDUCTIONS PENDING GRAND JURY DECISION, PLACED ON

11/04/1988 NON FILED STATUS.

11/07/1988 INFO FILED FOR CT #1 ARMED BURGLARY

11/07/1988 INFORMATION FILED AS TO COUNTS: 1

11/08/1988 NOTICE OF COURT DATE-ARRAIGNMENT-111888

11/14/1988 STIP & ORDER FOR COURT REPORTER


11/18/1988 ARMED BURGLARY, ARR-PNG TRIAL SET 012389, PD

11/18/1988 HOCKETT APPT

11/22/1988 AFFIDAVIT & ORDER OF INDIGENCY W/ATTACHMENTS

12/08/1988 STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

12/08/1988 FILED

12/23/1988 AFFIDAVIT & ORDER OF INDIGENCY

01/03/1989 STIP. & ORDER FOR CONT. TO 032089 FOR TRIAL WST

01/12/1989 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION(S)




01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. BRENDA

01/18/1989 REDDEN 011789




01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. JACK SAPP

01/18/1989 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT. BOB

01/18/1989 STANTON 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. PAUL

01/18/1989 SUTTON 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED MIKE ZAGORSKI

01/18/1989 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. GARY

01/18/1989 JANKINS 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED ACTING CHIEF

01/18/1989 GORDON JOLLY

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LT. A. F.

01/18/1989 HOGLE 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED CAPT. RON

01/18/1989 BATEY 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED CAPT. DAVID

01/18/1989 BLOUGH 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. LARRY

01/18/1989 BLAIR 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LT. JAMES

01/18/1989 FULTON 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT. DAVID

01/18/1989 HARRINGTON


01/18/1989 KIMBALL 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED BERTY CLINE

01/18/1989 011389

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT. GARY

01/19/1989 SELTZER 011889




01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LINDA JONES

01/19/1989 011789

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER

01/19/1989 KENNETH CASTRO

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET STAN HAYES

01/19/1989 011889

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. GEORGE

01/19/1989 CONNER 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH JAMES

01/23/1989 TUTSOCK 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH JACELYN

01/23/1989 REAMS 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH MADELYN

01/23/1989 LUZIER 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT H N HICKOK

01/23/1989 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH VIRGINIA

01/23/1989 CASEY 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFF. ROBBIN

01/23/1989 HINESLEY 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER MARK

01/23/1989 MILLER 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER GEORGE

01/23/1989 POTTER 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DR PEARSON

01/23/1989 CLACK 011989 - SUB

01/26/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT PATRICK

01/26/1989 GRIFFIN 012489

02/06/1989 SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OW WITNESSES





02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET BJ

02/13/1989 SULLIVAN 2-9-89

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET P SUTTON

02/13/1989 2-9-89

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH M LUZIER

02/13/1989 2-9-89

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH J REAMS

02/13/1989 2-09-89


02/14/1989 STANTON 021089


02/24/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED RENA LAMPHER

02/24/1989 022189

03/01/1989 SUPP STATES RESPONSE TO DEF DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

03/02/1989 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING $120.00

03/02/1989 , FILED

03/02/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING

03/02/1989 $562.25 FILED

03/02/1989 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT & ORDER TO TRANSPORT

03/07/1989 PETITION AND ORDER FOR COSTS/PAY HATIN COURT

03/07/1989 REPORTING $500.25

03/09/1989 MEMO-AUTHORIZATION TO REVIEW TAPES TO T HOCKETT

03/09/1989 FROM D DENNEY

03/09/1989 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

03/16/1989 ORDER TO TRANSPORT

03/17/1989 AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR COURT REPORTER

03/20/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET B J

03/20/1989 SULLIVAN 031489

03/20/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT. BOB

03/20/1989 STANTON 031489





03/23/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED RENA

03/23/1989 LAMPHER 032089

03/28/1989 ORDER ON STATES MOTION FOR COSTS/PAY HATIN COURT

03/28/1989 REPORTING $143.20


03/28/1989 REPORTING $38.40

03/29/1989 PETITION AND ORDER FOR COSTS/PAY TOBEY HOCKETT

03/29/1989 $78.00

03/29/1989 MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT

03/29/1989 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT


04/03/1989 $175.50 FILED


04/03/1989 $164.50 FILED

04/05/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. BRENDA

04/05/1989 REDDEN 033089




04/18/1989 REDDEN 041489

04/24/1989 CERTIFICATE OF NON ATTENDANCE


05/12/1989 MOTION & ORDER FOR DEPO COSTS - PAY $89.60 HATIN

05/12/1989 CT REPORTING

05/16/1989 MOTION & ORDER FOR DEPO COSTS - PAY HATIN COURT

05/16/1989 REPORTING $41.60



08/03/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER BRENDA




08/03/1989 REDDEN


08/17/1989 MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ADMISSIONS OR

08/17/1989 CONFESSIONS

08/17/1989 MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

08/18/1989 STIP. & ORDER FOR CONT. TO 092589 FOR TRIAL

08/23/1989 SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF PERSONS W/INFORMATION

08/23/1989 RELEVANT TO OFFENSE



09/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED PTL WILDTRAUT

09/01/1989 083089

09/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED PTL ZAVOS

09/01/1989 083089



09/14/1989 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RELY UPON THE DEFENSE OF

09/14/1989 INSANITY

09/19/1989 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 101089

09/25/1989 DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST FILED

09/26/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA & VIDEO

09/26/1989 $3.62 FILED

09/26/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY TOBEY C. HOCKETT $78.00

09/26/1989 FILED

09/26/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY TOBEY HOCKETT $194.35

09/26/1989 FILED

10/02/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ACCURATE REPORTERS, INC

10/02/1989 $130 FILED

10/06/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ACCURATE CRT REPORTERS

10/06/1989 $130.00 FILED






10/13/1989 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER WILDTRAUT


10/24/1989 CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT WITNESSES

10/24/1989 COSTS


10/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LEONARD

10/27/1989 DREIBELBIS 090789



10/27/1989 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN COURT REPORTING $15.20

10/27/1989 , FILED

11/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET KORICH

11/01/1989 103089

11/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED DET C

11/01/1989 LACERTOSA


11/01/1989 103189

11/02/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING $77.25

11/02/1989 FILED

11/08/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER M

11/08/1989 MILLER 110389

11/08/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED J C HANLON EMT

11/08/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED R PETERSON

11/08/1989 EMT

11/14/1989 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK:

11/14/1989 CANCELED









11/21/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED GORDON JOLLY

11/21/1989 112189

11/22/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ALDERSON CRT REPORTING

11/22/1989 $196.95 FILED

11/22/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY SMART CORPORATION $12.26

11/22/1989 FILED

11/22/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ACCURATE CRT REPORTING

11/22/1989 $130.00 FILED

11/22/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT, LACERTOSA

11/22/1989 112089

11/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. KORICH

11/27/1989 112089


11/27/1989 WILDTRAUT 112189

11/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED J.C. HANLON

11/27/1989 EMT 112189

11/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED R.

11/27/1989 PETERSON EMT 112189


12/18/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA SHOP $100.02

12/18/1989 FILED


12/18/1989 REPORTING $106.75


12/19/1989 WILDTRAUT 121689


12/19/1989 LACERTOSA 121589





12/21/1989 121589


01/05/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING $21.60 ,

01/05/1990 FILED


01/09/1990 WILDTRAUT 010690

01/09/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED J C HANLON

01/09/1990 010590

01/12/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFF LACERTOSA

01/12/1990 010890




01/26/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN COURT REPORTING

01/26/1990 $51.75 FILED

01/26/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY CROSSROADS TRAVEL $240.00

01/26/1990 FILED

01/29/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED T.J. BROOM,

01/29/1990 EMT 012490

01/29/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED KATHY GARCIA

01/29/1990 012490

01/29/1990 MOTION & ORDER FOR DEPO COSTS PAY HATIN COURT

01/29/1990 REPORTING $12.80


01/30/1990 $66.25 FILED

02/06/1990 CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT WITNESSES COST

02/07/1990 STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

02/08/1990 MOTION FOR EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO

02/08/1990 FLA R CRIM P 3.216 & 3.210




02/09/1990 SUPPLEMENTAL STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND

02/09/1990 FOR DISCOVERY

02/13/1990 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 021690 MOT FOR EXAM OF DEF,

02/16/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY HATIN COURT REPORTING

02/16/1990 12.00 FILED


02/16/1990 SA MOTION FOR EXAM OF DEF: GRANTED, SA TO DO ORDER

02/16/1990 ADDENDUM TO MOTION FOR EXAM PURSUANT TO FL R.

02/16/1990 CRIMINAL 3.216 AND 3.210

02/19/1990 MOTION TO TRANSPORT FOR MEDICAL TEST, EXHIBIT A

02/19/1990 ORDER TO TRANSPORT FOR MEDICAL TEST

02/28/1990 STIP FOR CONT & WAIVER SPEEDY TRIAL TO 061190 T.D.

03/01/1990 MOTION AND ORDER FILED TO PAY HATIN COURT REPORT-

03/01/1990 ING 35.20

03/01/1990 PETITION AND ORDER FILED TO PAY HATIN COURT

03/01/1990 REPORTING 93.88


03/01/1990 REPORTING 172.00


03/01/1990 REPORTING 128.75


03/06/1990 LETTER TO JUDGE BLUE FROM PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE

03/06/1990 RE: ORDER FOR EXAMINATION

03/06/1990 ORDER & MOTION TO APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS

03/08/1990 ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS

03/08/1990 GRANTED

03/09/1990 PD-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION W/ATTACHMENT







03/12/1990 AFFIDAVIT OF JANN HATIN RE: DEPOSITION OF DET

03/12/1990 DAVID HARRINGTON


03/14/1990 38.40 FILED


03/14/1990 33.60 FILED

03/20/1990 MOTION & ORDER FOR COSTS TO DR. SIDNEY MERIN

03/20/1990 EXPERT WITNESS $450.00

03/22/1990 AMENDED ORDER TO TRANSPORT FOR MEDICAL TEST


04/09/1990 AMENDED MOT TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVID W/ATTACH


04/17/1990 ORDER & STIP TO CONTINUE MOTIONS

04/17/1990 AMENDED DA NOTICE OF HEARING 052990 & 053090

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED LARRY PRESLEY 042590

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED CHRIS FIEDLER 042590

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED JOSEPH ERRARA 042590

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED PAUL BENNETT 042590

05/10/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET SUTTON 050990

05/11/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY AAA TRAVEL AGENCY 198.00

05/11/1990 FILED

05/11/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY DENNIS NALES 402.73 FILED

05/11/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET KORICH 051090

05/11/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET SULLIVAN 050990

05/11/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET CASTRO 051090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED OFF WILDTRAUT 051190

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED OFF CASTRO SPD,0501090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED TECH CASEY,SPD 050990

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET LACERTOSA 051090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET REDDEN, SPD 050990




05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED OFF ZAVOS,SPD 051090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET SUTTON,SPD 051090

05/17/1990 SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVID

05/17/1990 DA SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 052990

05/17/1990 PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE W/ATTACHMENTS

05/17/1990 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

05/22/1990 MOT FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS

05/22/1990 MOT TO DISMISS O.S.C.

05/23/1990 WITNESS SUBPOENA FOR HEARING, DET LACERTOSA

05/23/1990 WITNESS SUBPOENA FOR HEARING, DET KIMBALL

05/25/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING-CPL HERSHEL FUESTON-SERVED

05/25/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING-JOYCE CASH-SERVED

05/29/1990 LIST OF WITNESSES

05/29/1990 EVIDENCE RECORD

05/29/1990 COURTS EXHIBITS A-D, DEF. EXHIBITS 1A

05/29/1990 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: D/A

05/29/1990 SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENC

05/29/1990 TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT, CASE SET TRIAL 7-23-90 9AM

05/30/1990 STIP AND ORDER FOR CONT TO 072390 TRIAL WST

05/31/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING-MADELYN LUZIER-UNSERVED

06/01/1990 CASE EVIDENCE LISTING VERIFICATION REPORT




06/12/1990 MOTION TO RESERVE RULING ON DEFENDANTS SECOND

06/12/1990 AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

06/12/1990 AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS

06/12/1990 OR CONFESSIONS

06/15/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY DR SIDNEY MERIN 200.00





06/21/1990 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE TO 082790 TRIAL

06/22/1990 MOTION TO RESERVED RULING ON DEF SECOND AMENDED

06/22/1990 MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE-ORDER RULING

06/22/1990 DENIED

06/27/1990 PETITION FOR REHEARING

07/09/1990 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: SA

07/09/1990 PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE CONTINUED UNTIL

07/09/1990 EXAMS ARE TAKEN BY DOCTOR; DEF TO COMPLY, DEF ATTY

07/09/1990 TO BE PRESENT AT EXAMS

07/10/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY ALDERSON REPORTING $178.50

07/17/1990 PD-AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING


07/27/1990 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 082090 & 082190

07/27/1990 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING


08/02/1990 MOT TO STRIKE DEF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELY UPON THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY

08/08/1990 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE TO 110590 TRIAL WST

08/10/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR DANIEL J SPREHE $1000.00

08/15/1990 WITNESS SUBPOENA FOR HRG

08/16/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING N/SERVED DET P SUTTON

08/16/1990 SPD 081490

08/16/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET J SAPP SPD

08/16/1990 081690

08/16/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING SERVED SGT R STANTON

08/16/1990 SPD 081690

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVED CAPT R BATEY SPD 081490

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVE DET B SULLIVAN SPD 081390

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING N/SERVE DET P SUTTON SPD 081390

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET J SAPP SPD 081390

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVED SGT B STANTON SPD 081590




08/16/1990 DA NOTICE OF HEARING 082090

08/16/1990 DA MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT

08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DEBORAH SCOTT 081690

08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR TRIAL SERVED CINDY LOWERY 081690

08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR TRIAL SERVED DENISE LAGASSE 081690

08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED ROSE TOMKINSON 081790

08/20/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED SGT LACERTOSA 081790


08/20/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET SULLIVAN 081590

08/20/1990 SA MOT TO STRIKE DEFS NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELY

08/20/1990 UPON THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY

08/20/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED MAUREEN MAUCHER 081790

08/20/1990 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: P/D

08/20/1990 MOTION TO APPT EXPERT WITNESS DR. RICHARD OFSHE-

08/20/1990 GRANTED, P/D MOTION TO SUPPRESS & OTHER PENDING

08/20/1990 MOTIONS CONTINUED TO 1016-17-1890 @ 9AM ALL WITNESSES

08/20/1990 CONTINUE ON SUBPOENAS, EXPERT WITNESS REPORT TO BE

08/20/1990 MADE AVAILABLE TO STATE BY 091490


08/21/1990 MOTION TO STRIKE-NOT HEARD


08/21/1990 ORDER TO TRANSCRIBE HEARING

08/21/1990 ORDER CONTINUING DEFS AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS

08/21/1990 STATEMENTS ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS

08/22/1990 P/D SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DEF R KORICH SPD 082090

08/27/1990 MOTION TO AMEND ORDER TO APPOINT EXPERT

08/27/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET CASTRO 082290


08/27/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET SUTTON 082490

08/27/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET SAPP,SPD 082490




08/29/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED SGT STANTON 082890


09/07/1990 P/D NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

09/11/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET KORICH,SPD 091090

09/11/1990 DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST

09/11/1990 AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT W/ATTACHMENT

09/12/1990 PD SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET P SUTTON SPD 091190

09/18/1990 SA-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED DR WALTER AFIELD 091390

09/19/1990 ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO COOPERATE WITH COURT-

09/19/1990 APPOINTED EXPERTS

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) TO PRECLUDE IMPROPER

09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTORIAL

09/20/1990 QUESTIONING AND ARGUMENT ON ANY ATTEMPT BY THE DEF

09/20/1990 TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL REMARKS AND ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE

09/20/1990 JURORS' OBLIGATIONS


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENT DURING ANY

09/20/1990 PHASE OF THIS TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY CHARACTERIZING

09/20/1990 OR ATTACKING DEFENSE COUNSEL

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) TO PRECLUDE ANY PROSECU-

09/20/1990 TORIAL ARGUMENT OR STATEMENTS DURING ALL PHASES

09/20/1990 OF THE TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE OF THE

09/20/1990 DEFENSE TO PRODUCE A WITNESS OR ANY WITNESSES


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE

09/20/1990 DEF FAILURE TO TESTIFY IF HE DECIDES TO EXERCISE

09/20/1990 THAT RIGHT




09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) TO PRECLUDE ANY INDIRECT

09/20/1990 COMMENTS ON THE DEF EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN

09/20/1990 SILENT DURING ANY PHASE OF THE TRIAL


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS ELICITING

09/20/1990 SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM OR VICTIM'S FAMILY


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS AS TO FACTS

09/20/1990 NOT IN EVIDENCE


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS CONCERNING

09/20/1990 ANY INFLAMMATORY DESCRIPTION OF THE DEF OR THE

09/20/1990 CRIME

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTOR-

09/20/1990 IAL COMMENTS OR REFERENCE TO THE APPELLATE PROCESS

09/20/1990 OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR THE FEDERAL COURT SYS-

09/20/1990 TEM


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS ATTACKING

09/20/1990 DEFENSE WITNESSES


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGURMENTS WHICH

09/20/1990 ATTEMPT TO IMPROPERLY BOLSTER STATE'S WITNESSES


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENT INDICATING

09/20/1990 THAT THE PROSECUTOR OR PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE BELIEVE

09/20/1990 IN THE GUILTY OF THE DEF

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#15) TO PRECLUDE THE PROSE-

09/20/1990 CUTOR FROM MAKING ANY IMPROPER COMMENT DEMEANING A

09/20/1990 RECOGNIZED DEFENSE, SUCH AS INSANITY OR INTOXICA-




09/20/1990 TION


09/20/1990 CUTOR FROM DEMEANING ANY POSSIBLE LESSER INCLUDED

09/20/1990 OFFENSES IN THIS CASE

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#17) TO PRECLUDE ANY COMMENT

09/20/1990 BY THE PROSECUTION CONCERNING ANY DISCUSSIONS OF

09/20/1990 COMMUNITY FEELINGS ABOUT THE CRIMES IN THIS CAUSE

09/20/1990 OR ABOUT SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENT DEALING WITH GOLDEN RULE


09/20/1990 CUTION FROM ATTACKING THE DEF RACE


09/20/1990 CUTION FROM MAKING ANY COMMENT AS TO THE LACK OF

09/20/1990 REMORSE OF THE DEF


09/20/1990 BY THE PROSECUTION AS TO THE DEF GUILT


09/20/1990 CUTION FROM MAKING STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE CRED-

09/20/1990 IBILITY OF ANY WITNESS

09/28/1990 DEF'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST FOR MOTION TO

09/28/1990 SUPPRESS HEARING 1016,1017 & 101890

10/11/1990 STIP AND ORDER FOR CONT TO TRIAL ON 121790 WST

10/16/1990 SA-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

10/17/1990 NOTICE OF HEARING/DA MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO

10/17/1990 PERPETUATE TESTIMONY W/ATTACHMENTS

10/18/1990 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK-DA MOTION

10/18/1990 TO TAKE DEPO-DENIED

10/18/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY SCRIPT SERVICES $344.75





10/18/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR SIDNEY MERIN $950.00


10/19/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIAC INSTITUTE

10/19/1990 $1,800.00


10/31/1990 ORDER ON MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE

10/31/1990 TESTIMONY

10/31/1990 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS TO MARY SCHULTZ $25.00

11/01/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY M MUSETTA & ASSOC $365.75

11/07/1990 JOINT STIP FOR COURT REPORTER, ORDER ON JOINT STIP

11/09/1990 STIP AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE TO 012891 TRIAL WST

11/09/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DAVID W DENNEY,SAO $393.00

11/09/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY COPYMAT $37.66

12/07/1990 MOT & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INST $150.00


12/10/1990 MOTION TO QUASH SUBP FOR DEPO GRANTED, DA MOTION

12/10/1990 TO TAKE SECOND DEPOS DENIED

01/14/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR RICHARD OFSHE $3,062.50

01/14/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY COMBS & GREENLEY,INC $683.25

01/14/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY COMBS & GREENLEY $1,229.00

01/15/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET B STANTON,SPD 011191

01/15/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET P SUTTON,SPD 011091

01/18/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET K CASTRO,SPD 011091

01/24/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET B SULLIVAN,SPD 011891

01/24/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET J SAPP,SPD 011891


01/25/1991 ORDER SETTING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR 013091,

01/25/1991 013191 & 020191 @ 9:30 AM COURTROOM "F" BEFORE

01/25/1991 JUDGE SILVERTOOTH

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DENISE LAGASSE 012591




01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED CINDY LOWERY 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED RICHARD WATSON 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR N/SERVED SGT STANTON,SPD 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED SGT LACERTOSA,SPD 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET P SUTTON,SPD 012591

01/28/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET R STANTON,SPD 012591


01/29/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED ROSE TOMKINSON,SSO 012891

01/29/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED MAUREEN MAUCHER,SSO 012891



01/30/1991 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 5/29/1990

01/31/1991 SA-NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION

01/31/1991 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD J OFSHE TAKEN 110990 AND

01/31/1991 111090, 2 VOLUMES




02/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED CPT R BATEY,SPD 012491

02/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET SULLIVAN,SPD 013191

02/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET J SAPP,SPD 013191

02/04/1991 PD-NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION

02/04/1991 DEPO OF SGT ROBERT STANTON TAKEN 020289


02/04/1991 DEPO OF DET B J SULLIVAN TAKEN 032189

02/04/1991 DEPO OF DET PAUL SUTTON TAKEN 022789

02/04/1991 DEPO OF DET BRENDA REDDEN TAKEN 080889

02/04/1991 DEPO OF DR WALTER AFIELD TAKEN 092190

02/06/1991 SUPP STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEF DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY






02/13/1991 STIP & ORDER CONT TD 040891

02/13/1991 PD-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION



02/19/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR DANIEL SPREHE $1600.00


02/22/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING-MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT 02/25

02/22/1991 AT 9:30AM

02/25/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS-COURT,STATE & DEFENSE

02/25/1991 CLERKS MOTION NOTES

02/25/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: MOTION

02/25/1991 TO SUPPRESS: TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

02/25/1991 DEFENDANT'S AMENDED WITNESS LIST

03/01/1991 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS,

03/01/1991 ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS

03/01/1991 ORDER SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL TO BEGIN MAY 28 THRU

03/01/1991 JUNE 7,1991 BEFORE JUDGE G.SMITH

03/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET B REDDEN,SPD 013091

03/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED ROB GROEB,ASA 012591

03/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED CHARLES MCMILLAN 012591

03/04/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING 030791

03/05/1991 BINDER - STATE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

03/05/1991 BINDER - CASES CITED IN MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING

03/05/1991 PD-MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

03/05/1991 MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS OR CON-

03/05/1991 FESSIONS

03/05/1991 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT

03/05/1991 LETTER FROM DR D SPREHE TO JUDGE OWENS

03/05/1991 LETTER FROM T HOCKETT TO JUDGE SILVERTOOTH




03/08/1991 MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEFENDENTS MOTION TO

03/08/1991 SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS

03/08/1991 PETITION FOR REHEARING ON DEFENDANTS AMENDED MOT.

03/08/1991 TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS

03/08/1991 AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

03/12/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR DANIEL SPREHE $1,750.00


03/19/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR SIDNEY MERIN $1,150.00

03/20/1991 STIP AND ORDER FOR CONT TO TRIAL ON 5/13/91

03/25/1991 DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

03/25/1991 EXCERPTS OF HEARING 1/30/1991 AND 2/1/1991

03/27/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING: 03/28/91 CALENDAR CALL

03/27/1991 SUPP STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEF DEMAND FOR DISC.

03/27/1991 EXCERPT OF HEARING 2/1/1991

03/28/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: DA

03/28/1991 ORAL MOTION TO CONTINUE 88-3202F INTO MAY DENIED,

03/28/1991 JUDGE TO PREPARE ORDER SETTING CASES FOR TRIAL

03/28/1991 ORDER SETTING CASES FOR TRIAL ON 042291

03/28/1991 SA NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 040191-MOTION TO COMPEL/

03/28/1991 MOTION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY

03/29/1991 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON 032891

04/01/1991 ORDER FILED IN OPEN COURT COMPELLING DR AFIELD TO

04/01/1991 COMPLETE HIS EXAMINATION OF E. JOHNSON

04/01/1991 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERPETUATE


04/01/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: S/A

04/01/1991 MOTION TO COMPEL-GRANTED, DR AFIELD IS TO COMPLETE

04/01/1991 HIS EXAMINATION BY 041591, S/A MOTION TO PERPETUATE

04/01/1991 TESTIMONY-GRANTED

04/01/1991 AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING ON DEFENDANTS AMEND




04/01/1991 ED MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ADMISSIONS OR

04/01/1991 CONFESSIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

04/02/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/05/91 WITH JUDGE SILVER-

04/02/1991 TOOTH


04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED T.J. BROOM,SFD 040291

04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED J.C. HANLON,SFD 040291

04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED LINDA JONES 040291

04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL N/SERVED R PETERSON,SFD 040291

04/04/1991 LETTER FROM E. MORELAND TO TOBEY W/ATTACHED STATES

04/04/1991 RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

04/04/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/05/91

04/04/1991 MOTION TO SET EXAMINATION

04/04/1991 NOT OF TAKING DEPOSITION

04/04/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED RENA LAMPHER 040391

04/04/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL N/SERVED BRIDGETTE CHAPMAN 040391

04/04/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED MADELYN LUZIER 040391

04/04/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED W PEARSON CLACK, MD 040391

04/04/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED BERTY CLINE 040391

04/05/1991 EVIDENCE RECORD FOR MOTION ON 040591

04/05/1991 NOT. OF HEARING 04/17&18

04/05/1991 MOTION TO REDACT TAPE CONFESSION

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT B STANTON,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF R HINESLEY,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF G POTTER,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT G SELZER,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET G CONNER,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT HARRINGTON,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED CPT D BLOUGH,SPD 040491





04/05/1991 MOTION TO SET EXAMINATION GRANTED, JUDGE HOWEVER

04/05/1991 DOES NOT EXPECT EXAM TO BE DONE ON SAT OR SUN,

04/05/1991 040691 OR 040791; SA ORAL MOTION TO BE PRESENT AT

04/05/1991 THAT EXAMINATION GRANTED


04/05/1991 AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING ON DEF'S AMENDED


04/05/1991 FESSIONS DENIED - JUDGE ASKS FOR ORDER; MOTION TO

04/05/1991 COMPEL DENIED; MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEF'S


04/05/1991 FESSIONS DENIED

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED CPT RON BATY,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED LT J FULTON,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET J SAPP,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF M MILLER,SPD 040591

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET B SULLIVAN,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT P GRIFFIN,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED LT A HOGLE,SPD 040391

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET L BLAIR,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET R KORICH,SPD 040491


04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET S HAYES,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET LACERTOSA,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF K CASTRO,SPD 040491

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT H HICKOK,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TECH J REAMS,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET P SUTTON,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED PROP OFFICER,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET G JANKINS,SPD 040491

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TECH M ZAGORSKI,SSO 040591




04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET L KIMBALL,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TECH J TUTSOCK,SPD 040891


04/10/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED MJR R JOLLY,SPD 040891

04/10/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET B REDDEN,SPD 040491


04/11/1991 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

04/11/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF PRESTIA,SPD 041091

04/11/1991 MOTION RECORD FILED BY CLERK: S/A MOTION TO ADVANCE

04/11/1991 CASE ON TRIAL DOCKET-TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

04/11/1991 MOTION RECORD FILED BY CLERK: D/A MOTION TO DIS-

04/11/1991 QUALIFY JUDGE-TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

04/11/1991 COPY OF MOTION FOR INTERSTATE EXTRADITION OF WIT.

04/11/1991 ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTRADITION OF WITNESS

04/11/1991 CERTIFICATION OF MOTION FOR EXTRADITION


04/11/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING

04/11/1991 MOT TO ADVANCE CASE ON TRIAL DKT & SET TRIAL ORDER

04/11/1991 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS

04/11/1991 MOTION FOR COSTS

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED VIRGINIA CASEY 040891

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED NADINE GARBER,SPD 041091

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF CHURCHILL,SPD 041091

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET BEECHER,SPD 041091

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF HARDEE,SPD 041291

04/12/1991 LETTER TO JUDGE FROM STATE ATTORNEY

04/12/1991 ORDER OF COMMISSION

04/12/1991 MOTION FOR EXPENSES

04/12/1991 MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANT TRANSPORTED AND TO EXCLUDE

04/12/1991 THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FROM BEING PRESENT




04/12/1991 DURING EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT

04/12/1991 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE (#23) TO PRECLUDE TES

04/12/1991 TIMONY REGARDING ALLEGED SEMEN OR SPERM FOUND IN-

04/12/1991 SIDE THE VICTIM

04/12/1991 MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE


04/12/1991 ORDER



04/12/1991 S/A NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 041791 & 041891

04/12/1991 MOTION IN LIMINE



04/15/1991 ORDER ON MOTION TO ADVANCE CASE ON TRIAL DOCKET

04/15/1991 ORDER ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

04/16/1991 S/A NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 041691

04/16/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: ON SA'S

04/16/1991 AFFIDAVIT/PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, COURT

04/16/1991 ORDERS DR AFIELD APPEAR IN COURT 041891 @ 10 AM

04/16/1991 AFFIDAVIT/PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

04/16/1991 ORDER ON RULE TO SHOW CAUSE


04/16/1991 MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

04/16/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF PANICHELLO,SPD 041591

04/16/1991 ORDER ( COPY OF ORDER FILED IN OPEN COURT ON 4/1/91 )

04/17/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY TOUCH OF ART GALLERY $58.68

04/17/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY SPEEDY PHOTO $246.35


04/17/1991 ORAL MOTION TO SET TRIAL DATE CERTAIN DENIED

04/18/1991 ORDER-STATE IS PERMITTED TO REDACT TAPE CONFESSION





04/18/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF J DENIRO,SPD 041591

04/18/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET SOWDER,SPD 041591

04/19/1991 DEPOSITION OF DR DANIEL SPREHE, M.D. TAKEN 041691


04/19/1991 AMENDED INFO FILED CT#1 ARMED BURGLARY

04/19/1991 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-AMENDED INFO-ISSUED


04/22/1991 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

04/22/1991 STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS

04/22/1991 CASE EVIDENCE CHECK-BACK RECEIPT FOR EXHIBIT(S)

04/22/1991 ORDER DENYING DEF'S PETITION FOR REHEARING ON

04/22/1991 DEF'S AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, AD-

04/22/1991 MISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOV-

04/22/1991 ERY, AND MOTION FOR AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEF'S




04/22/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEF'S


04/22/1991 FESSIONS (UNSIGNED)

04/22/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING ON


04/22/1991 MISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL DIS-

04/22/1991 COVERY (UNSIGNED)

04/24/1991 ORDER (ON COMPETENCY)

04/26/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO TRANSPORT DEF TO DR

04/26/1991 AFIELD'S OFFICE & TO EXCLUDE THE STATE FROM ATTEN-

04/26/1991 DING - DENIED

04/26/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION FOR DR OFSHE'S EXPENSES -




04/26/1991 GRANTED (REASONABLE EXPENSE)

04/29/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY THE REPORTERS GROUP $327.75


04/30/1991 MOTION TO SEQUESTER THE JURY DURING TRIAL

04/30/1991 SUPPLEMENTAL STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

05/01/1991 WITHDRAWAL OF INSANITY DEFENSE



05/01/1991 ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO PROCEED WITH

05/01/1991 TRIAL ON 042991

05/02/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD:TO BE ARRAIGNED-DEFENSE

05/02/1991 WAIVES FORMAL READING, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE


05/06/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY PATRICK BAKER $150.00



05/06/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR GREGORY DECLUE $100.00

05/06/1991 COPY OF JURY SEATING CHART (3 PAGES)

05/06/1991 MOTION RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: 043091 MOTION TO

05/06/1991 SEQUESTER JURY DURING TRIAL-DENIED, MOTION TO CONT

05/06/1991 RESERVED RULING, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE-RESERVED

05/06/1991 RULING, 050191 MOTION FOR CONT-RESERVED RULING,

05/06/1991 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE-RESERVED RULING, MOTION TO

05/06/1991 CHALLENGE TO PANEL-DENIED, 050291 MOTION TO CONSOL

05/06/1991 IDATE-RESERVED RULING, 050691 D/A MOTION TO COMPEL

05/06/1991 GRANTED (W/IN 5 DAYS), D/A MOTION TO COMPEL NOTES-

05/06/1991 GRANTED, NOTES ARE TO BE PROVIDED W/IN 5 DAYS OR

05/06/1991 JUDGE WILL NOT ALLOW MR BENNETT AS A WITNESS, D/A

05/06/1991 RENEWS MOTION TO SEQUESTER JURY-DENIED






05/13/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TIM FOWLER 051391

05/13/1991 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY PATRICK BAKER $337.50


05/14/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SHEILA MAYS 051391

05/14/1991 MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO HAIR COMPARISON EVIDENCE

05/14/1991 MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO FIBER COMPARISON EVIDENCE

05/15/1991 MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT WITNESS IN THE FEILD OF

05/15/1991 HAIR AND FIBER ANALYSIS


05/15/1991 MOTION FOR DISCHARGE


05/15/1991 AMENDED SUPP STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND


05/15/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR ROBERT STEELE $300.00

05/15/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DIANE MILLER & ASSOC $24.00

05/16/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY DIANE MILLER & ASSOC $93.00

05/16/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY KATHARINE H PRATT $148.10



05/17/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING, 5/20/91 MOTION


05/17/1991 WITNESS SUBPOENA SERVED TECHNICIAN J. REAMS

05/20/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR DANIEL J SPREHE $1,250.00

05/21/1991 AMENDED DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST (PENALTY PHASE)

05/21/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT SELZER,SPD

05/21/1991 052191

05/21/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET CONNER,SPD

05/21/1991 052191

05/21/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT R STANTON,SPD




05/21/1991 051791

05/23/1991 SECOND AMENDED DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST (PENALTY

05/23/1991 PHASE)


05/23/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA & VIDEO $16.50



05/23/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY BLUE LINE, INC $17.12

05/24/1991 DEPOSITION OF DANIEL A PRESTIA, JR TAKEN 051791

05/24/1991 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM WORLINE TAKEN 051791

05/24/1991 VERDICT-GUILTY OF ARMED BURGLARY AS CHARGED

05/24/1991 COPY OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS

05/24/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: DEF FOUND GUILTY BY JURY

05/24/1991 DEF IS TO REMAIN IN CUSTODY PENDING SENTENCING ON

05/24/1991 TUES 052891 AT 1PM

05/24/1991 MOTION RECORD: D/A MOTION FOR CONTACT VISIT-RESERVED

05/24/1991 AT THIS TIME

05/24/1991 TRIAL RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: JUDGE A OWENS,

05/24/1991 STATE ATTY E MORELAND/D DENNEY/D NALES, DEF ATTY

05/24/1991 E METCALFE/T HOCKETT/A TEBRUGGE, CT RPTR B PUTNAM,

05/24/1991 CLERK K BILLINGSLEY, JURY SWORN 052091 AT 10:50 AM

05/24/1991 STATE WITNESS SWORN 052091 BERTY CLINE, OFC MARK

05/24/1991 MILLER, OFC JACK SAPP, SGT DAVID HARRINGTON, WIT-

05/24/1991 NESSES SWORN 052191 JOCELYN REAMS, MADELYN LUZIER,

05/24/1991 VIRGINIA CASEY-ID DEF, SGT HOWARD HICKOK-ID DEF,

05/24/1991 LEONARD P DREIBELBIS, WITNESSES SWORN 052291 PAUL

05/24/1991 BENNETT FBI, VIRGINIA CASEY (RECALLED), DEF BJ

05/24/1991 SULLIVAN-ID DEF, WILLIAM WORLINE, OFC DANIAL

05/24/1991 PRESTIA, DEF PAU SUTTON-ID DEF, SGT ROBERT STANTON

05/24/1991 ID DEF, WITNESS SWORN 052391 DR WILLIAM CLACK,




05/24/1991 DEFENSE WITNESSES SWORN ROBERT KOPEC, OFC KENNETH

05/24/1991 CASTRO, DET GORDON SOWDER, SGT GARY SELZER, DET

05/24/1991 GEORGE CONNOR, TECH JAMES TUTSOCK, JOCELYN REAMS,

05/24/1991 PRETRIAL MOTIONS-D/A MOTION FOR DISCHARGE-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO SEMEN FOUND IN VICTIM-

05/24/1991 RESERVED AT THIS TIME, RICHARDSON HEARING (REF:

05/24/1991 PHOTO) HELD, D/A ORAL MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE-

05/24/1991 DENIED, D/A RENEWS ITS MOTION TO SUPPRESS-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION (RENEWS) ITS MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL

05/24/1991 EVIDENCE-DENIED, D/A MOTION FOR MISTRIAL-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A RENEWS ITS MOTION TO SUPPRESS ADMISSIONS,

05/24/1991 STATEMENTS AND CONFESSIONS-DENIED, D/A MOTION FOR

05/24/1991 MISTRIAL-DENIED, D/A MOTION TO JUDGMENT OF ACQUIT-

05/24/1991 TAL-DENIED AS TO BOTH COUNTS, D/A RENEWS MOTION

05/24/1991 FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL-DENIED AS TO BOTH COUNTS

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION FOR MISTRIAL-DENIED, JURY INSTRUCTIONS

05/24/1991 FILED, SIGNED VERDICT RECEIVED, JURY POLLED

05/28/1991 MOTION RECORD: D/A MOTION FOR CONTACT VISIT-GRANT

05/28/1991 ORDER TO FOLLOW, LT LINCH SWORN FOR STATE

05/28/1991 ORDER FOR CONTACT VISIT


05/29/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM SERVED J TUTSOCK, SPD 052091

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED TECH J REAMS,SPD 052091

05/29/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM SERVED TECH J REAMS,SPD 052091

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED DET SOWDER,SPD 052191

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED OFF K CASTRO,SPD 052291

05/29/1991 PD-WITNES SUB SERVED DET KIMBALL,SPD 052191

05/29/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM SERVED NADINE GARBER,SPD 051791

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED TECH J TUTSOCK,SPD 051791




05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB N/SERVED OFF R KORICH,SPD 051791

05/30/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS #'S 446, 448, 449, 314, 315

05/30/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS #'S 450, 394, 395

05/30/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS #'S 390, 391, 392, 393

05/30/1991 PROPERTY RECORD #113069, #113069 (DUP), #113071,

05/30/1991 #113072, #113073, #113073 (DUP), #113076, #113077,

05/30/1991 #113080, #113082, #113359

05/31/1991 DA MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED RENA LAMPHER 051791

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED TIM FOWLER 051791

06/03/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM FOR TRIAL SERVED KAREN RUSHING,

06/03/1991 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 051791

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED KENNETH JOHNSON 052891

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED ROBERT HOLIDAY 051791


06/11/1991 JUDGMENT RECORDED BK 2304 PG 978, 979

06/17/1991 CASE EVIDENCE CHECK OUT/RECEIPT FOR EXHIBITS


06/17/1991 MOT & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA & VIDEO $210.00

06/19/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING 061991 REF: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/19/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: DA MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/19/1991 TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

06/20/1991 REOPENED FOR SENTENCING

06/20/1991 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL--DENIED

06/24/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DIPLOMAT TAXI $10.80

06/27/1991 WAIVER OF PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION

06/27/1991 C.C.'S OF COURT MINUTES & INFO. FROM ORANGE CO.

06/27/1991 SENTENCING HEARING RECORD: PAM COLEMAN SWORN AS

06/27/1991 STATE WITNESS; DA AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/27/1991 (88-3200F & 88-3438F) DENIED, DA MOTION TO PRODUCE




06/27/1991 SENTENCING GUIDELINES GRANTED, DA MOTION TO STRIKE

06/27/1991 PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION - MOOT, DA MOVES TO

06/27/1991 WAIVE PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS ON ALL REMAINING

06/27/1991 CASES

06/28/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: LIFE FSP W/CTS OF 966

06/28/1991 DAYS TO RUN CONSEC TO 88-3438F,88-3246F & 88-3202F

06/28/1991 COURT STIPS UPWARD DEPARTURE, COURT COSTS AND ATTY

06/28/1991 FEES WAIVED. SENTENCED BY A D OWENS

06/28/1991 ORDER (SUPPORTING DEPARTURE SENTENCE)

06/28/1991 CLERKS NOTES AT SENTENCING

06/28/1991 CLERKS NOTES AT SENTENCING


06/28/1991 UNIFORM COMMITMENT TO CUSTODY OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

06/28/1991 SENTENCE AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS

07/02/1991 JUDGMENT (AMENDED NUNC PRO TUNC TO 052491 TO RE-

07/02/1991 FLECT CORRECT CHARGE) RECORDED BK 2310 PG 902, 903

07/03/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DIANE MILLER & ASSOC COURT

07/03/1991 REPORTERS $328.00

07/11/1991 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY FOR PURPOSE OF APPEAL W/

07/11/1991 ORDER

07/19/1991 NOTICE OF APPEAL

07/19/1991 DESIGNATION TO COURT REPORTER

07/19/1991 WRITTEN DIRECTIONS TO COURT CLERK

07/19/1991 STATEMENT OF JUDICIAL ACTS TO BE REVIEWED

07/30/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR SIDNEY J MERIN $3,500.00

07/30/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY VIKING VIDEO $175.00


07/30/1991 AMENDED DESIGNATION OF COURT REPORTER

08/07/1991 LETTER FROM CLERK TO DCA RE: ORDER OF INSOLVENCY

08/19/1991 LETTER FROM SUPREME CT RE: EXTENSION OF TIME




08/19/1991 FOR CLERK & RECORDER W/INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

08/22/1991 PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

11/04/1991 DESIGNATION OF PD TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR

11/04/1991 HANDLING OF APPEAL

11/14/1991 LETTER FROM CLERK TO SUPREME CT RE: REQUEST FOR

11/14/1991 EXTENSION OF 1 WEEK

11/22/1991 ORDER GRANTING CONT FROM SUPREME CT TO 12/02/91

11/25/1991 MOTION & ORDER FOR PAYMENT TO PAY DR MICHAEL S

11/25/1991 MAHER $960.00

11/27/1991 CASE EVIDENCE CHECK OUT RECEIPT FOR EXHIBITS

12/04/1991 INDEX & COVERSHEET SENT TO SUPREME CT W/48 VOLS

12/04/1991 OF APPEAL RECORD- SENT FEDERAL EXPRESS



10/25/1995 MANDATE & OPINION RET.FROM SUPREME CT OF FLORIDA

10/25/1995 FOR APPEAL 78,336 AFFIRMED ISSUED 07/13/95 FINAL

10/25/1995 10/23/95 (ACK)

10/25/1995 ORDER FROM SUPREME CT.OF FLORIDA FOR APPEAL 78,336

10/25/1995 APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING IS HEREBY DENIED

10/25/1995 09/22/95 (ACK)

01/27/1997 ORDER OF THE COURT SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

01/27/1997 03/10/97 (ACK)

03/24/1997 COVER LETTER FROM OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL

03/24/1997 REPRESENTATIVE DATED 3-21-97 (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 NOTICE OF FILING (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO ATTY GENERAL ROBERT BUTTERWORTH FROM

03/24/1997 PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-21-97

03/24/1997 (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO HARRY SINGLETARY, D.O.C., FROM PAUL

03/24/1997 MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-21-97 (3-25/MDM)




03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO ROSE PONDER, FDLE, FROM PAUL MANN, CCR

03/24/1997 INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-21-97 (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO GEOFFREY MONGE, SSO, FROM PAUL MANN,

03/24/1997 CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-21-97 (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO JOHN LEWIS, SPD, FROM PAUL MANN, CCR

03/24/1997 INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-21-97 (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO STEVE MARONEY, FDLE, FROM PAUL MANN,


03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO PEARSON CLACK, MD, MEDICAL EXAMINER,

03/24/1997 FROM PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-21-97

03/24/1997 (3-25/MDM)

03/24/1997 C:LETTER TO EARL MORELAND, SAO, FROM PAUL MANN,


05/15/1997 (CITY OF SARASOTA) OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR

05/15/1997 PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS, OR IN ALTERNATIVE,

05/15/1997 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER W/ATTACHMENT (5-21/MDM

05/19/1997 STATE ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR

05/19/1997 PRODUCTION AND NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS

06/10/1997 ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MOT. TO TOLL

06/10/1997 TIME IS GRANTED UNTIL 090197 06/17/97 (ACK)

06/08/1998 LETTER TO KAREN RUSHING FROM JOHN MOSER, CAPITAL

06/08/1998 COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL-MIDDLE RE: FILING OF

06/08/1998 ORIG DEF'S NOTICE OF FL SUPREME COURT ORDER

06/08/1998 061098/LAV

06/08/1998 DEF'S NOTICE OF FL SUPREME COURT ORDER W/ATTACHMNT

06/08/1998 061098/LAV

07/01/1998 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK FROM OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL

07/01/1998 NOTICE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORDER

07/02/1998 LETTER W/ATTACHMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE

07/02/1998 OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORDER FROM CAPITAL COLL.




07/02/1998 REG.COUNSEL MIDDLE REGION 07/06/98 (ACK)

04/16/1999 LETTER FROM CAPITAL COLLATERAL COUNSEL AS TO

04/16/1999 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

04/16/1999 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY MARK GRUBER 0416MF

08/16/1999 LETTER TO CLERK FROM MARK GRUBER

08/16/1999 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING

08/31/1999 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT HAS 60 DAYS TO FILE ANY SUPPLEMENTAL

08/31/1999 RECORDS REQUESTS

10/28/1999 NOTICE OF FILING GM



11/05/1999 NOTICE OF FILING; MM

12/20/1999 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST

12/20/1999 FOR ADDITIONAL RECORDS

12/20/1999 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

02/04/2000 NOTICE OF FILING OF RECORDS WITH RESPOSITORY


02/04/2000 NOTICE OF FILING

02/14/2000 LETTER TO CLERK FROM MARK GRUBER, CAPITAL COLLATERAL

02/14/2000 REGIONAL COUNSEL LV

02/14/2000 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING W/ATTACHMENTS LV

02/29/2000 MOTION HEARING 2000-03-13 15:00 N / 5C OWENS, ANDREW D

02/29/2000 NOTICE OF HEARING / CR

03/10/2000 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS TH

03/10/2000 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS

05/17/2000 COVER LETTER TO CLERK


05/17/2000 COPY OF LETTER TO SARASOTA CITY POLICE FROM LAW OFFICE OF THE

05/17/2000 CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL MIDDLE REGION

05/22/2000 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL




05/22/2000 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

06/05/2000 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS/JE

01/01/2002 CONVERSION: CONVERTED IMAGES, DATES SHOWN ON DOCUMENTS (1 OF 2)

01/01/2002 MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT ( SEE IMAGE WITHIN CONVERTED DOCKET IMAGES FOR 1/1/2002 )

01/01/2002 MOT TO STRIKE DEF'S NOT OF INTENT TO RELY UPON THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY ( SEE IMAGE WITHIN CONVERTED DOCKET IMAGES FOR 1/1/2002 )

01/01/2002 MEMORANDUM OF LAW ( SEE IMAGE WITHIN CONVERTED DOCKET IMAGES FOR 1/1/2002 )

01/01/2002 CASE LAW ( SEE IMAGES WITHIN CONVERTED DOCKET IMAGES FOR 1/1/2002 )

01/01/2002 CASE LAW ( SEE IMAGES WITHIN CONVERTED DOCKET IMAGES FOR 1/1/2002 )


02/14/2002 ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE (RM


03/04/2002 COVER LETTER FROM MARK S. GRUBER OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL (RM

03/04/2002 MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (AS

03/04/2002 AMENDED) WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (RM

03/04/2002 VERIFICATION FROM DEFENDANT (RM

03/04/2002 APPENDIX FOR MOTION TO VACATE (RM

03/04/2002 REOPENED FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF 1

03/28/2002 ** CONVERTED EVENT HISTORY AS OF 03/28/2002 **

DATE/TIME TYPE LOCATION JUDGE

-------------------------------------------------------

03/13/2000 15:00 CMOT N OWENS, ANDREW D

04/26/2002 MOTION

05/13/2002 CORRESPONDENCE

05/13/2002 NOTICE-OF FILING

06/19/2002 MOTION

06/24/2002 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING


06/27/2002 COURT EVENT SET




EVENT: CRIMINAL - MOTION HEARING

DATE: 07/29/2002 TIME: 3:00 PM

JUDGE: OWENS, ANDREW D LOCATION: COURTROOM 5-C

07/22/2002 NOTICE OF FILING BRIEFS

07/22/2002 TRANSCRIPT WITH ATTACHMENTS

07/29/2002 TRIAL/ MOTION RECORD

08/12/2002 MEMORANDUM


12/05/2002 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE



DATE: 12/05/2002 TIME: 2:00 PM



12/18/2002 RESPONSE - CRIMINAL - TO STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING




01/16/2003 NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT

01/16/2003 AFFIDAVIT

01/23/2003 MOTION - AMENDED - AMENDED DESIGNATIONS OF PRO SE CLAIMS ADOPTED BY COUNSEL


03/25/2003 MOTION TO CLARIFY



04/16/2003 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE;ORDER CONCERNING STATES MOTION TO CLARIFY

06/10/2003 APPEAL - ORDER SC03-848

06/10/2003 ORDER FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

08/18/2003 SECOND MOTION TO VACATE JDGMNT OF CONVICTION/SENTENCE (AS AMENDED)




W/SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND W/ATTACHMENTS

08/18/2003 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS UNDER RING V AZ.

08/18/2003 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE VERIFICATIONS BY SEPT. 15, 2003

08/18/2003 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK'S OFF. FROM MARK S. GRUBER-ASSIST. CCC RE:MOTIONS/NOTICES FOR FILING

08/29/2003 CORRESPONDENCE FROM MARK S. GRUBER-ASSIST. CCC RE:DOCUMENTS FOR FILING

08/29/2003 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS UNDER RING V AZ

08/29/2003 NOTICE - AMENDED OF INTENT TO FILE VERIFICATIONS BY SEPT. 15, 03

09/15/2003 MOTION - AMENDED TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND




11/06/2003 PARTY CHARGE RE-OPENED

CHARGE #1: BURGL-DWELLING STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE ARMED



DATE: 11/24/2003 TIME: 11:30 AM


RESULT: HEARING HEARD (CRIMINAL)

11/24/2003 APPEARANCE RECORD

11/24/2003 PARTY CHARGE DISPOSED

12/02/2003 ORDER

12/23/2003 ADDENDUM TO MOTION - AMENDED WITH ATTACHMENT



03/22/2004 CORRESPONDENCE - COMPLAINT



09/29/2004 STATE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO VACATE JDGMNT OF CONVICTION/SENTENCE (AS




AMENDED) W/SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND W/ATTACHMENTS




DATE: 03/23/2005 TIME: 11:30 AM

JUDGE: OWENS, ANDREW D LOCATION: COURTROOM 4-A

RESULT: ENTERED IN ERROR (CIVIL INFRACTION)



DATE: 03/23/2005 TIME: 1:30 PM


RESULT: CANCELLED (CRIMINAL)


03/29/2005 COURT EVENT CANCELLED

THE FOLLOWING EVENT: CRIMINAL - MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 03/23/2005 AT 1:30 PM HAS BEEN RESULTED AS FOLLOWS:





DATE: 08/16/2005 TIME: 1:30 PM



08/04/2005 ORDER

08/05/2005 PARTY CHARGE RE-OPENED

CHARGE #1: BURGL-DWELLING STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE ARMED









DATE: 09/21/2005 TIME: 9:30 AM





09/15/2005 CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY MARK GRUBER RE: PLEADINGS


09/20/2005 MAIL RETURNED



09/30/2005 MOTION TO STRIKE


10/20/2005 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ADOPTED PRO SE CLAIMS

12/08/2005 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COUNSEL TO REVIEW PRO SE FILINGS AND SEEK LEAVE TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL CLAIMS


12/27/2005 APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE SC05-1734


12/27/2005 APPEAL - ORDER SC05-1734


01/03/2006 REQUEST - CRIMINAL

01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.




01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 ORDER CONCERNING RECEIPT OF NEW PRO SE FILINGS FROM DEFENDANT; ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE DOCUMENTS

01/17/2006 MOTION - DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS - DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 MEMORANDUM OF LAW DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 SECOND MEMORANDUM OF LAW DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.


02/06/2006 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE PRO SE CORRESPONDENCE


03/17/2006 APPEAL - ORDER SC05-1734

06/22/2006 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE PROSE CORRESPONDENCE

06/22/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT (9 PAGES) / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

07/18/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS


07/18/2006 TRANSMITTAL FORM STATE ATTORNEY

07/18/2006 PRO SE NOTICE TO THE COURT IN RE TO: WITH ATTACHMENTS-(COPY)



08/28/2006 MOTION OF SUBMISSION OF BINDING PRESEDENT TO TRIAL COURT IN RE TO POSTCONVICTION

09/27/2006 PRO SE NOTICE

09/27/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS WITH ATTACHMENTS







DATE: 03/01/2007 TIME: 10:00 AM



02/06/2007 REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CRIMINAL

02/27/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING - AMENDED


03/01/2007 ORDER FOLLOWING HUFF HEARING; ISSUES TO BE HEARD AT EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH ATTACHMENT

03/06/2007 ORDER AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE

03/28/2007 RECEIPT

03/28/2007 CORRESPONDENCE WITH ATTACHMENT

04/18/2007 PRO SE NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH ATTACHMENT

07/02/2007 APPEAL - SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE / SC07-1158 / PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND / OR PROHIBITION

07/19/2007 CORRESPONDENCE ( DO NOT IMAGE PER COURT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 163 PAGES) / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

10/04/2007 MEMORANDUM IN LAW


10/19/2007 APPEAL - ORDER FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RE: DEF'S PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND / OR PROHIBITION / SC07-1158

11/05/2007 RESPONSE - CRIMINAL / PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORDER IN CASE # SC07-1158

12/26/2007 APPEAL - ORDER FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RE: APPEAL # SC07-1158 / PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT IS HEREBY DENIED




DATE: 02/01/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM






01/22/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING - CANCELLATION




DATE: 02/22/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM



THE FOLLOWING EVENT: CRIMINAL - MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 02/01/2008 AT 11:00 AM HAS BEEN RESULTED AS FOLLOWS:



02/11/2008 RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASE

02/11/2008 EXHIBITS TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASE


02/22/2008 APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA / SC03-848 ( WITH ATTACHMENTS )

02/25/2008 ORDER


03/24/2008 DECLARATION OF "PRO SE STATUS" THEREBY DISCHARGING "OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE' FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE AND/OR ANY OTHER CAUSES RELATED TO PENDING LOWER-COURT PROCEDDINGS AND REQUEST FOR NON-C.C.R.C. "STANDBY COUNSEL"

03/24/2008 PRO SE MOTION TO AMEND DEFENDANTS 3.851/3.850 MOTION(S)

03/24/2008 PRO SE AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND WITH ATTACHMENTS

03/24/2008 PRO SE NOTICE TO THE COURT IN RE TO: FAILURE OF BOTH TRIAL ATTORNEY AND STATE PROVIDED POST-0CONVICTION LEGAL TEAM TO INVESTIGATE FACTS CRUCIAL TO PROPER PREPARATION AND REPRESENTATION OF THE DEFENDANT DURING TRIAL AND APPEALS




WITH ATTACHMENTS

04/14/2008 CORRESPONDENCE FROM LAW OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL



04/17/2008 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S "RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASES" WITH ATTACHMENTS

05/30/2008 STATE'S REPLY TO DEFENDNAT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S "RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON - CAPITAL CASES"




DATE: 08/22/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM


07/21/2008 ORDER - TRANSPORT




DATE: 09/05/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM




09/16/2008 ADDENDUM TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND



11/03/2008 STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE, LIMITED TO DEFENDANT'S "ADDENDUM" TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE

12/15/2008 ORDER DENYING STATE'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASES





01/05/2009 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S "ADDENDUM" TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE (RE: MARCH 17, 2008 PRO SE FILING)

01/26/2009 CORRESPONDENCE - PRO SE

01/26/2009 MEMORANDUM OF LAW - PRO SE


02/05/2009 MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANT'S RECENT PRO SE FILINGS



DATE: 03/31/2009 TIME: 2:00 PM

JUDGE: OWENS, ANDREW D LOCATION: COURTROOM 6-B


03/30/2009 EMAIL CONVERSATION DOCUMENT







DATE: 04/01/2009 TIME: 2:00 PM




EVENT: MOTIONS

DATE: 04/01/2009 TIME: 2:00 PM










04/02/2009 MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANTS RECENT PRO SE FILINGS

04/02/2009 CORRESPONDENCE (COPY MEMORANDUM OF LAW ATTACHED)

04/06/2009 ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE

04/16/2009 WITNESS LIST




DATE: 08/03/2009 TIME: 9:30 AM


04/28/2009 ORDER - DENIED ON (1) PRO SE MOTION TO AMEND 3.851 MOTION AND ADDITIONAL CLAIMS FOR WHICH EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUIRED; (2) CCRC'S ADDENDUM TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; AND (3) CCRC'S MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANT'S RECENT PRO SE FILINGS

05/11/2009 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR REHEARING


05/28/2009 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR REHEARING

06/08/2009 PRO SE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, OR REHEARING


07/22/2009 ORDER - TRANSPORT (AMENDED)

07/31/2009 DISCOVERY EXHIBIT

08/03/2009 CORRESPONDENCE FROM DEFENDANT

08/03/2009 OBJECTION, FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL

08/03/2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



08/05/2009 EVIDENCE RECORD # 25188 ( DEFENSE EXHIBITS )

08/05/2009 EVIDENCE RECORD # 25189 ( STATE EXHIBITS )




08/11/2009 ORDER DIRECTING WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENTS AS TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING HELD AUGUST 3-4, 2009


08/11/2009 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED BY MAIL

08/11/2009 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED BY MAIL

08/11/2009 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED



08/11/2009 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVICE UNKNOWN

08/11/2009 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVICE UNKNOWN



08/11/2009 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED MAIL


09/15/2009 DEFENDANT'S PRO SE 3.850/3.851 POST CONVICTION RESPONSE AND CLOSING ARGUMENTS WITH ATTACHMENTS

10/30/2009 INITIAL WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT

11/04/2009 ORDER

11/12/2009 NOTICE OF FILING - EX PARTE LETTER


11/13/2009 ATTACHMENTS TO INITIAL WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT

11/25/2009 CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE ON APPEAL

11/25/2009 STATE'S RESPONSE/POST EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENTS


11/30/2009 NOTICE OF FILING INDEX AND ATTACHMENTS TO STATE'S POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENT (RECORD EXCERPTS & PLEADINGS)

11/30/2009 STATE'S NOTICE OF FILING ATTACHMENTS TO POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENT (LEGAL AUTHORITY CITED)

12/09/2009 REPLY TO STATE'S POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENT WITH ATTACHMENTS


12/18/2009 SUPPLEMENTAL/COUNTER RESPONSE - CRIMINAL




02/05/2010 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE

02/05/2010 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY


09/08/2010 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE WITH ATTACHMENTS

09/16/2010 ORDER DENYING 3.851 MOTION AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH ATTACHMENTS

09/30/2010 ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER DENYING 3.851 MOTION AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH ATTACHMENTS

10/15/2010 APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL ( 3.851 EVIDENTIARY APPEAL )

10/15/2010 APPEAL - DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

11/12/2010 APPEAL CORRESPONDENCE

11/12/2010 APPEAL - AMENDMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL

11/22/2010 APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW CASE ( SC10-2008 / 3.850 EVID )

11/22/2010 APPEAL - ORDER ( FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RE: APPEAL # SC10-2008 )

12/03/2010 ORDER SETTING MANADATORY STATUS CONFERENCE



DATE: 01/07/2011 TIME: 1:30 PM




12/13/2010 APPEAL - DEF'S DESIGNATION TO THE COURT REPORTER

12/28/2010 APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COURT REPORTER

01/05/2011 PHONE CONVERSATION DOCUMENTATION

CRIM(MISC) PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

SENT ON: 01/05/2011 09:12:58

01/06/2011 EMAIL CONVERSATION DOCUMENT / EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE APPEALS CLERK & THE SUPREME COURT CAPITAL CASE CLERK RE: CLARIFICATION OF THE APPELLATE RULES FOR PREPARING THE RECORD ON APPEAL





01/11/2011 REPORT CONCERNING STATUS OF RECORD PREP ISSUED AFTER MANDATORY STATUS CONFERENCE ( COPY / ORIGINAL FILED WITH SUPREME COURT )

02/03/2011 MEMORANDUM FROM COURT REPORTERS TO SUPREME COURT RE: APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS

02/03/2011 APPEAL / TRANSCRIPT / 3/13/00 / HRG










02/03/2011 APPEAL - 1 C.D. CONTAINING ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL OF THE APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS DESIGNATED TO BE COMPLETED FOR THE FOLLOWING APPEAL # 'S : 2D10-5481, 2D10-5482, SC10-2008 & SC10-2219

02/16/2011 APPEAL COVER SHEET & INDEX CREATED AND RECORD FORWARDED TO THE APPELLATE COURT ( SC10-2008 )

02/16/2011 APPEAL COVER SHEET & MASTER INDEX OF EXHIBITS FORWARDED TO THE APPELLATE COURT ( SC10-2008 )

02/16/2011 APPEAL - RECEIPTS FOR SHIPMENT OF 6 BOXES TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF THE RECORDS ON APPEAL FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219

02/16/2011 APPEAL - RECEIPTS FOR SHIPMENT OF 6 BOXES TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE RECORDS ON APPEAL FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219

02/16/2011 APPEAL - RECEIPTS FOR SHIPMENT OF 6 BOXES TO C.C.R.C. OF THE RECORDS ON APPEAL FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219

02/22/2011 APPEAL - U.P.S. DELIVERY RECEIPTS FOR ALL PACKAGES CONTAINING THE APPEAL RECORDS SENT TO THE FL SUPREME CT., A.G. & C.C.R.C. FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219

07/13/2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND/OR TO INVOKE ALL WRITS JURISDICTION (TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED)

07/13/2011 PRO SE DECLARATION OF PRO SE STATUS AND/OR BASIS/MOTION FOR PRO SE ADDENDUM / SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RELATIVE TO PRO SE FILINGS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT AD LITEM "RECORD OF APPEALS"




07/13/2011 APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL / 3.850 EVIDENTIARY


07/14/2011 ACTION: NOTICE OF APPEAL FORWARDED TO SUPREME COURT

07/14/2011 ACTION: PETITION OF WRIT OF HAB. CORP. FORWARDED TO SUPREME COURT

11/13/2012 APPEAL - MANDATE & OPINION / APPEAL # SC10-2008 / AFFIRMED

11/13/2012 APPEAL CLOSED / APPEAL # 2D10-2008 / AFFIRMED

01/03/2013 APPEAL - ORDER - SUPREME COURT / MOT REHEARING -DENIED /SC10-2008

01/18/2013 APPEAL - MANDATE & OPINION

12/09/2015 SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

12/09/2015 APPENDIX TO SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

12/29/2015 STATE OF FLORIDA'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE JUDGEMNT AND SENTENCE

02/05/2016 PRO SE MOTION AND ARGUMENT ESTABLISHING "DUE-DILIGENCE" FOR APPELLATE -PURPOSES WITH- RESPECT TO "NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE" CLAIMS CURRENTLY BRIEFED BEFORE THIS COURT

02/05/2016 ACTION: PRO SE DOCUMENT EMAILED TO COURT FOR REVIEW

02/05/2016 MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTIONS FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2016

02/10/2016 (1) ORDER SCHEDULING CAPITAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; (2) ORDER GRANTING STATE'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PRO SE "MOTION AND ARGUMENT ESTABLISHING 'DUE DILIGENCE' FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO 'NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE' CLAIMS CURRENTLY BRIEFED BEFORE THIS COURT"

02/12/2016 MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF HURST V. FLORIDA

02/12/2016 NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

02/17/2016 CRIMINAL - MOTION HEARING SET FOR 02/17/2016 AT 10:00 AM IN 6A , JDG: OWENS, ANDREW D


02/17/2016 MOTION RECORD

03/31/2016 (1) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF HURST V FLORIDA; (2) ORDER DENYING DEFEDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE


04/26/2016 DIRECTIONS TO CLERK




04/27/2016 FORWARD NOTICE OF APPEAL TO APPELLATE COURT / INCLUDED ORDER 3/30/16

04/27/2016 DESIGNATIONS TO THE COURT REPORTER

06/02/2016 ACTION: FORWARDED NOTICE OF APPEAL TO FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PER TANGY WILLIAMS

06/07/2016 APPEAL - ORDER FROM THE SUPREME COURT SC16-959


06/07/2016 APPEAL - ORDER / SC16-959

06/07/2016 ACTION:

06/07/2016 APPEAL - TRANSCRIPTS

06/07/2016 APPEAL - TRANSCRIPTS / CD


06/13/2016 APPEAL - MOTION



07/06/2016 APPEAL COVER SHEET & INDEX CREATED AND RECORD FORWARDED TO THE SUPREME COURT - SC16-959


07/07/2016 CERTIFICATE OF ADDRESS

07/07/2016 ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF RECORD

07/08/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED/TO COUNSEL/SC16-959

07/08/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED/TO SUPR. COURT/SC16-959

07/12/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED/SC16-959

07/18/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED FROM FL SUP COURT / SC16-959

07/18/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED FROM A.G. / SC16-959

12/12/2016 APPEAL - SUPREME COURT ORDER / SC16-959

01/06/2017 DEFENDANT;S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (HURST V. FLORIDA)

01/06/2017 ACTION: EMAILED DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (HURST V. FLORIDA) TO COURT FOR REVIEW







07/03/2017 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

07/26/2017 APPEAL - NOTICE


07/26/2017 APPEAL - DESIGNATION TO COURT REPORTER

07/28/2017 FORWARD NOTICE OF APPEAL (BY EMAIL) TO FLORIDA SUPREME COURT / WITH ORDER ATTACHED


07/31/2017 APPEAL - ORDER / SC17-1401

07/31/2017 APPEAL - ORDER / SC17-1401

08/02/2017 APPEAL - ORDER / SC17-1401

08/02/2017 APPEAL - ORDER / SC17-1401

08/16/2017 APPEAL - TRANSCRIPTS

08/21/2017 TRANSCRIPT - APPEAL - APRIL 10, 2017

10/12/1988 ARREST WARRANT FILED

10/12/1988 PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT FILED

10/12/1988 CASE FILED WITH CLERK

10/13/1988 BOOKING REPORT FILED RET DATE 110488

10/13/1988 EXECUTED WARRANT 101188

10/13/1988 ADVISORY HEARING BAIL SET-NONE-HOMICIDE

10/24/1988 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT RULE 3.216

11/04/1988 INDICTMENT FILED FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE


11/04/1988 HOMICIDE-NO ACTION TAKEN BY COURT RE: BOND

11/04/1988 REDUCTIONS PENDING GRAND JURY DECISION, PLACED ON

11/04/1988 NON FILED STATUS.

11/04/1988 GRAND JURY JUDICIAL INSTRUCTIONS

11/08/1988 NOTICE OF COURT DATE-ARRAIGNMENT-111888

11/09/1988 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY LARRY D. COMBS $162.21




11/09/1988 FILED

11/18/1988 STIP & ORDER FOR COURT REPORTER


11/18/1988 MURDER 1ST DEGREE, ARR-PNG TRIAL SET 012389, PD

11/18/1988 HOCKETT APP

11/22/1988 AFFIDAVIT & ORDER OF INDIGENCY W/ATTACHMENTS

12/08/1988 STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

12/08/1988 FILED

12/23/1988 AFFIDAVIT & ORDER OF INDIGENCY







01/18/1989 REDDEN 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. JACK SAPP

01/18/1989 011789


01/18/1989 STANTON 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. PAUL

01/18/1989 SUTTON 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED MIKE ZAGORSKI

01/18/1989 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. GARY

01/18/1989 JANKINS 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED ACTING CHIEF

01/18/1989 GORDON JOLLY

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LT. A.F. HOGLE

01/18/1989 011789




01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED CAPT. RON

01/18/1989 BATEY 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED CAPT. DAVID

01/18/1989 BLOUGH 011789


01/18/1989 BLAIR 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LT. JAMES

01/18/1989 FULTON 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT. DAVID

01/18/1989 HARRINGTON 011789


01/18/1989 KIMBALL 011789

01/18/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED BERTY CLINE

01/18/1989 011389

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT. GARY

01/19/1989 SELTZER 011889

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LINDA JONES

01/19/1989 011789


01/19/1989 KENNETH CASTRO

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. GEORGE

01/19/1989 CONNER 011889

01/19/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET STAN HAYES

01/19/1989 0118889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH JAMES

01/23/1989 TUTSOCK 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH JACELYN

01/23/1989 REAMS 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT H N HICKOK

01/23/1989 011889




01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH MADELYN

01/23/1989 LUZIER 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH VIRGINIA

01/23/1989 CASEY 011789

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER ROBBIN

01/23/1989 HINESLEY

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER MARK

01/23/1989 MILLER 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER GEORGE

01/23/1989 POTTER 011889

01/23/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DR PEARSON

01/23/1989 CLACK 011989

01/26/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT PATRICK

01/26/1989 GRIFFIN 012489


02/08/1989 SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OW WITNESSES

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET BJ

02/13/1989 SULLIVAN 2-9-89

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET P SUTTON

02/13/1989 2-9-89

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED TECH M LUZIER

02/13/1989 2-9-89

02/13/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED J REAMS

02/13/1989 2-09-89


02/14/1989 STANTON 021089



02/24/1989 022189





03/02/1989 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING $120.00

03/02/1989 , FILED


03/02/1989 $562.25 FILED%

03/02/1989 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT & ORDER TO TRANSPORT

03/06/1989 SUPPLEMENTAL STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY


03/07/1989 REPORTING $500.25

03/09/1989 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

03/16/1989 ORDER TO TRANSPORT

03/17/1989 AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR COURT REPORTER


03/28/1989 PETITION & ORDER FOR COSTS PAY SSTA POLICE DEPT

03/28/1989 $203.35


03/28/1989 REPORTING $38.40

03/29/1989 MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT



04/03/1989 $164.50 FILED%

04/05/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. BRENDA

04/05/1989 REDDEN 033089


04/09/1989 $175.50 FILED




04/18/1989 REDDEN 041489

04/19/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DAMA SECURITY CORP $100

04/19/1989 FILED




04/24/1989 CERTIFICATE OF NON ATTENDANCE


05/11/1989 MOTION FOR CONTACT VISIT


05/12/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY COSTS - PAY $363.00 TO

05/12/1989 HATIN COURT REPORTING

05/15/1989 PETITION AND ORDER FOR FEES/PAY HATIN COURT

05/15/1989 REPORTING $25.00

05/16/1989 PETITION & ORDER FOR COSTS - PAY HATIN CT

05/16/1989 REPORTING $25.00


07/27/1989 MOTION FOR CONTACT VISIT



08/03/1989 DA - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER BRENDA

08/03/1989 REDDEN


08/17/1989 MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS OR

08/17/1989 CONFESSIONS



08/23/1989 SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF PERSONS W/INFORMATION

08/23/1989 RELEVANT TO OFFENSE



08/30/1989 PETITION & ORDER FOR COSTS TO BEVERLY ACKERMAN $

08/30/1989 358.38

09/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED PTL WILDTRAUT

09/01/1989 083089

09/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED PTL ZAVOS




09/01/1989 083089



09/14/1989 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RELY UPON THE DEFENSE OF

09/14/1989 INSANITY


09/26/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA & VIDEO $3.62

09/26/1989 FILED

09/26/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY LANE'S COURT REPORTERS

09/26/1989 $131.30 FILED

10/06/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ACCURATE REPORTERS $130.00

10/06/1989 FILED



10/20/1989 DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST



10/25/1989 COSTS


10/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED LEONARD

10/27/1989 DREIBELBIS 090789



10/27/1989 , FILED $%

11/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET KORICH

11/01/1989 103089

11/01/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED DET C

11/01/1989 LACERTOSA


11/01/1989 103189




11/02/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING $77.25

11/02/1989 FILED

11/08/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFFICER M

11/08/1989 MILLER 110389

11/08/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED R PETERSON

11/08/1989 EMT


11/08/1989 (EMT)


11/14/1989 COSTS


11/14/1989 CANCELLED






11/21/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION NOT SERVED R.

11/21/1989 PETERSON EMT 112189

11/22/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED SGT, LACERTOSA

11/22/1989 112089

11/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED DET. KORICH

11/27/1989 112089


11/27/1989 WILDTRAUT 112189

11/27/1989 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED J.C. HANLON

11/27/1989 EMT 112189

12/12/1989 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS RE: INVESTIGATIVE FUNDS


12/18/1989 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA SHOP $100.02




12/18/1989 FILED


12/18/1989 REPORTING $106.75


12/19/1989 WILDTRAUT 121689


12/21/1989 121589


12/29/1989 LACERTOSA 121589


01/05/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN CRT REPORTING $21.60 ,

01/05/1990 FILED


01/09/1990 010590


01/09/1990 WILDTRAUT 010690

01/12/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED OFF LACERTOSA

01/12/1990 010890




01/26/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY CROSSROADS TRAVEL $240.00

01/26/1990 FILED

01/29/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED T.J. BROOM,

01/29/1990 EMT 012490

01/29/1990 PD - SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION SERVED KATHY GARCIA

01/29/1990 012490


01/30/1990 $66.25 FILED

02/06/1990 CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT WITNESSES COST




02/07/1990 STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

02/08/1990 MOTION FOR EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO

02/08/1990 FLA R CRIM P 3.216 & 3.210



02/13/1990 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 021690 MOT. FOR EXAM OF DEF,


02/16/1990 12.00 FILED

02/16/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE

02/16/1990 900.00 FILED

02/16/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE $ 200.00 FILED


02/16/1990 SA MOTION FOR EXAM OF DEF: GRANTED, SA TO DO ORDER

02/16/1990 ADDENDUM TO MOTION FOR EXAM PURSUANT TO FL. R.

02/16/1990 CRIMINAL P. 3.216 AND 3.210

02/19/1990 MOTION TO TRANSPORT FOR MEDICAL TEST, EXHIBIT A

02/19/1990 ORDER TO TRANSPORT FOR MEDICAL TEST

02/28/1990 STIP FOR CONT & WAIVER SPEEDY TRIAL TO 061190 T.D.

03/01/1990 MOTION AND ORDER FILED TO PAY HATIN COURT REPORT-

03/01/1990 ING 35.20


03/06/1990 LETTER TO JUDGE BLUE FROM PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE

03/06/1990 RE: ORDER FOR EXAMINATION

03/06/1990 ORDER & MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS

03/08/1990 ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS

03/08/1990 GRANTED


03/12/1990 AFFIDAVIT OF JANN HATIN RE: DEPOSITION OF DET

03/12/1990 DAVID HARRINGTON





03/14/1990 33.60 FILED

03/20/1990 MOTION & ORDER FOR COSTS TO DR. SIDNEY MERIN

03/20/1990 EXPERT WITNESS $450.00



04/06/1990 PETITION AND ORDER TO PAY THE NEUROPSYCHIATRIC

04/06/1990 INSTITUTE 300.00 FILED

04/09/1990 AMENDED MOT TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVID W/ATTACH


04/17/1990 ORDER & STIP TO CONT MOTIONS

04/17/1990 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 052990 & 053090

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED LARRY PRESLEY 042590

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED CHRIS FIEDLER 042590

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED JOSEPH ERRARA 042590

05/01/1990 PD-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED PAUL BENNETT 042590

05/04/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY AAA TRAVEL AGENCY 259.00

05/04/1990 FILED

05/04/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY TOBEY C HOCKETT, PUBLIC

05/04/1990 DEF'S OFFICE 144.23 FILED

05/10/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET SUTTON 050990

05/11/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY AAA TRAVEL AGENCY 198.00

05/11/1990 FILED

05/11/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY DENNIS NALES 402.73 FILED

05/11/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET KORICH 051090

05/11/1990 SA-WITNESS SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET SULLIVAN050990


05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED OFF WILDTRAUT,SPD 051090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED OFF CASTRO,SPD 051090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED TECH CASEY,SPD 050990

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET LACERTOSA,SPD 051090




05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET REDDEN,SPD 050990

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED OFF ZAVOS,SPD 051090

05/11/1990 DA-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED DET SUTTON,SPD 051090

05/17/1990 SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVID

05/17/1990 DA SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 052990

05/17/1990 PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE W/ATTACHMENTS

05/17/1990 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

05/23/1990 WITNESS SUPBOENA FOR HEARING, DET LACERTOSA

05/23/1990 WITNESS SUBPOENA FOR HEARING, DET KIMBALL

05/25/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING-CPR HERSHEL FUESTON-SERVED

05/25/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING-JOYCE CASH-SERVED

05/29/1990 LIST OF WITNESSES


05/29/1990 COURTS EXHIBITS A-D, DEF EXHIBIT 1A

05/30/1990 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: D/A

05/30/1990 SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

05/30/1990 TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT, CASE SET TRIAL 7-23-90 9AM

05/30/1990 STIP AND ORDER FOR CONT TO 072390 TRIAL WST

05/31/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING-MADELYN LUZIER-UNSERVED

05/31/1990 PETITION AND ORDER TO PAY DR RAUL NODAL 300.00




06/12/1990 MOTION TO RESERVE RULING ON DEFS. SECOND AMENDED




06/15/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ALDERSON REPORTING 327.61

06/15/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY ALDERSON REPORTING 159.75

06/15/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY DR SIDNEY MERIN 200.00





06/21/1990 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE TO 082790 TRIAL

06/22/1990 MOTION TO RESERVED RULING ON DEF SECOND AMENDED

06/22/1990 MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE- ORDER RULING

06/22/1990 DENIED

06/27/1990 PETITION FOR REHEARING


07/09/1990 PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE CONTINUED UNTIL

07/09/1990 EXAMS ARE TAKEN BY DOCTOR; DEF TO COMPLY, DEF ATTY

07/09/1990 TO BE PRESENT AT EXAMS


07/17/1990 PD-AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING

07/18/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY ALDERSON REPORTING $231.06


07/27/1990 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING


08/02/1990 MOT TO STRIKE DEF'S NOT OF INTENT TO RELY UPON THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY

08/08/1990 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE TO 110590 TRIAL WST

08/10/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DE DANIEL J SPREHE $1000.00

08/15/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING N/SERVED DET P SUTTON

08/15/1990 SPD 081490

08/16/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET J SAPP SPD

08/16/1990 081690

08/16/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING SERVED SGT R STANTON

08/16/1990 SPD 081690

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVED CAPT R BATEY SPD 081490

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVE DET B SULLIVAN SPD 081390

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING N/SERVE DET P SUTTON SPD 081390

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET J SAPP SPD 081390

08/16/1990 PD-SUB FOR HEARING SERVED SGT B STANTON SPD 081590




08/16/1990 DA NOTICE OF HEARING 082090

08/16/1990 DA MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT

08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED ROSE TOMKINSON 081790


08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR TRIAL SERVED CINDY LOWERY 081690

08/17/1990 PD-SUBP FOR TRIAL SERVED DENISE LAGASSE 081690

08/20/1990 SA MOT TO STRIKE DEFS NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELY

08/20/1990 UPON THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY

08/20/1990 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED MAUREEN MAUCHER 081790

08/20/1990 PD-SUBP FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT LACERTOSA 081790




08/20/1990 MOTION TO APPT EXPERT WITNESS DR. RICHARD OFSHE-

08/20/1990 GRANTED, P/D MOTION TO SUPPRESS & OTHER PENDING

08/20/1990 MOTIONS CONTINUED TO 1016-17-1890 @ 9AM WITNESSES

08/20/1990 CONTINUE ON SUBPOENAS, EXPERT WITNESS REPORT TO BE

08/20/1990 MADE AVAILABLE TO STATE BY 091490

08/20/1990 MEMORANDUM OF LAW


08/21/1990 MOTION TO STRIKE-NOT HEARD


08/21/1990 ORDER TO TRANSCRIBE HEARING

08/21/1990 ORDER CONTINUING DEFS AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS

08/22/1990 P/D SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET R KORICH SPD 082090

08/27/1990 MOTION TO AMEND ORDER TO APPOINT EXPERT

08/27/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET CASTRO 082290


08/27/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET SUTTON 082490

08/27/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED DET SAPP,SPD 082490





08/29/1990 SA-WITNESS SUB FOR HEAR SERVED SGT STANTON 082890


08/31/1990 CLERK'S NOTES

09/07/1990 P/D NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION


09/11/1990 DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST

09/11/1990 AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT W/ATTACHMENT

09/12/1990 PD SUB FOR HEARING SERVED DET P SUTTON 091190

09/18/1990 SA-SUBP FOR DEPO SERVED DR WALTER AFIELD 091390

09/19/1990 ORDER


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTORIAL

09/20/1990 QUESTIONING AND ARGUMENT ON ANY ATTEMPT BY THE

09/20/1990 DEF TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL REMARKS AND ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE

09/20/1990 JURORS' OBLIGATIONS


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENT DURING ANY

09/20/1990 PHASE OF THIS TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY CHARACTERIZING

09/20/1990 OR ATTACKING DEFENSE COUNSEL

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) TO PRECLUDE ANY PROSE-

09/20/1990 CUTORIAL ARGUMENT OR STATEMENTS DURING ALL PHASES

09/20/1990 OF THE TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE OF THE

09/20/1990 DEFENSE TO PRODUCE A WITNESS OR ANY WITNESSES


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE

09/20/1990 DEF FAILURE TO TESTIFY IF HE DECIDES TO EXERCISE




09/20/1990 THAT RIGHT

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) TO PRECLUDE ANY INDIRECT

09/20/1990 COMMENTS ON THE DEF EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN

09/20/1990 SILENT DURING ANY PHASE OF THE TRIAL


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS ELICITING

09/20/1990 SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM OR VICTIM'S FAMILY


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS AS TO FACTS

09/20/1990 NOT IN EVIDENCE


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS CONCERNING

09/20/1990 ANY INFLAMMATORY DESCRIPTION OF THE DEF OR THE

09/20/1990 CRIME

09/20/1990 DEF MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTOR-

09/20/1990 IAL COMMENTS OR REFERENCE TO THE APPELLATE PROCESS

09/20/1990 OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR THE FEDERAL COURT SYS-

09/20/1990 TEM


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS ATTACKING

09/20/1990 DEFENSE WITNESSES


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS WHICH ATTEMP

09/20/1990 TO IMPROPERLY BOLSTER STATE'S WITNESSES


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENT INDICATING

09/20/1990 THAT THE PROSECUTOR OR PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE BELIEVE

09/20/1990 IN THE GUILT OF THE DEF


09/20/1990 CUTOR FROM MAKING ANY IMPROPER COMMENT DEMEANING




09/20/1990 A RECOGNIZED DEFENSE, SUCH AS INSANITY OR INTOX-

09/20/1990 ICATION


09/20/1990 CUTOR FROM DEMEANING ANY POSSIBLE LESSER INCLUDED

09/20/1990 OFFENSES IN THIS CASE


09/20/1990 BY THE PROSECUTION CONCERNING ANY DISCUSSIONS OF

09/20/1990 COMMUNITY FEELINGS ABOUT THE CRIMES IN THIS CAUSE

09/20/1990 OR ABOUT SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY


09/20/1990 PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENT DEALING WITH THE GOLDEN RUL


09/20/1990 CUTION FROM ATTACKING THE DEF RACE


09/20/1990 CUTION FROM MAKING ANY COMMENT AS TO THE LACK OF

09/20/1990 REMORSE OF THE DEF


09/20/1990 BY THE PROSECUTION AS TO THE DEF GUILT


09/20/1990 CUTION FROM MAKING ANY STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE

09/20/1990 CREDIBILITY OF ANY WITNESS

09/20/1990 ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO COOPERATE WITH HIS COURT-

09/20/1990 APPOINTED EXPERTS

09/28/1990 DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST FOR MOTION

09/28/1990 TO SUPPRESS HEARING 1016,1017 & 101890



10/16/1990 LETTER FROM MANATEE COUNTY COURT TO CLERK

10/16/1990 PETITION FOR COSTS

10/17/1990 NOTICE OF HEARING/MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PER




10/17/1990 PETUATE TESTIMONY W/ATTACHMENTS

10/18/1990 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK-DA

10/18/1990 MOTION TO TAKE DEPO-DENIED/MOTION FOR COSTS-GRANTED

10/18/1990 PETITION FOR COSTS WITH ORDER AND ATTACHMENTS

10/18/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY TOBEY HOCKETT $23.60





10/19/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE

10/19/1990 $1,800.00


10/31/1990 ORDER ON MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE


11/01/1990 PETITION AND ORDER TO PAY M MUSETTA & ASSOC $90.40

11/01/1990 MOTION AND ORDER TO PAY M MUSETTA & ASSOC $365.75

11/07/1990 JOINT STIP FOR COURT REPORTER, ORDER ON JOINT STIP


11/09/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY AAA TRAVEL AGENCY $327.00

11/09/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DAVID W DENNEY,SAO $393.00

11/09/1990 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY COPYMAT $37.66


11/26/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY TOBEY HOCKETT,PD'S OFFICE

11/26/1990 $448.92

11/28/1990 PD-AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

11/28/1990 PD-SUBP DUCES TECUM FOR DEPO SERVED DET STANTON,

11/28/1990 SPD 112790

11/28/1990 PD-SUBP DUCES TECUM FOR DEPO SERVED DET P SUTTON,

11/28/1990 SPD 112690





12/04/1990 PD-SUBP DUCES TECUM FOR DEPO SERVED SGT LACERTOSA,

12/04/1990 SPD 113090

12/04/1990 SA-MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR DEPOSITION


12/05/1990 PD-MOTION TO TAKE SECOND DEPOSITION W/ATTACHMENTS

12/06/1990 PD-SUBP DUCES TECUM FOR DEPO SERVED DET G CONNER,

12/06/1990 SPD 113090

12/07/1990 MOT & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INST $150.00


12/10/1990 MOTION TO QUASH SUBP FOR DEPO GRANTED, DA MOTION

12/10/1990 TO TAKE SECOND DEPOS DENIED

12/11/1990 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM FOR DEPO SERVED DET ROBERT

12/11/1990 KORICH,SPD 120490

12/19/1990 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY COMBS & GREENLEY COURT RE-

12/19/1990 PORTING $742.50

12/28/1990 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING

12/28/1990 VOIR DIRE ON CAPITAL CASE

12/28/1990 MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS

12/28/1990 MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

12/28/1990 MOTION TO PRECLUDE CHALLANGE FOR CAUSE


12/28/1990 MOTION TO DECLARE SECT. 921.141 F.S. UNCONSTITUT.


12/28/1990 MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF

12/28/1990 PENALTY PHASE EVIDENCE

12/28/1990 MOTION TO DECLARE SECT. 922.10 F.S., UNCONSTITUT.

12/28/1990 MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE AND SEQUESTRATION

12/28/1990 OF JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE


12/28/1990 MOTION TO DECLARE DEATH NOT A POSSIBLE SENTENCE




12/28/1990 MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEF'S MOT TO DECLARE SECTION 921.141, F.S. UNCONSTITUTIONAL

01/14/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DR RICHARD OFSHE $3,375.00

01/14/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DR WALTER AFIELD $1,500.00

01/14/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR RICHARD OFSHE $3,062.50

01/14/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY COMBS & GREENLEY,INC $683.25

01/14/1991 MOITON & ORDER TO PAY COMBS & GREENLEY $1,229.00

01/15/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET B STANTON,SPD 011191




01/25/1991 ORDER SETTING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR 013091,

01/25/1991 013191 & 020191 @ 9:30 AM COURTROOM "F" BEFORE

01/25/1991 JUDGE SILVERTOOTH



01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DENISE LAGASSE 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED CINDY LOWERY 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED RICHARD WATSON 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR N/SERVED SGT STANTON,SPD 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED SGT LACERTOSA,SPD 012591

01/28/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET P SUTTON,SPD 012591

01/28/1991 SA-WITNESS SUBP SERVED DET R STANTON,SPD 012591


01/29/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED ROSE TOMKINSON,SSO 012891

01/29/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEAR SERVED MAUREEN MAUCHER,SSO 012891



01/31/1991 SA-NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION

01/31/1991 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD J OFSHE TAKEN 110990 AND




01/31/1991 111090, 2 VOLUMES




02/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED CPT R BATEY,SPD 012491

02/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET SULLIVAN,SPD 013191

02/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET J SAPP,SPD 013191

02/04/1991 PD-NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION



02/04/1991 DEPO OF DET B J SULLIVAN TAKEN 032189

02/04/1991 DEPO OF DET PAUL SUTTON TAKEN 022789

02/04/1991 DEPO OF DET BRENDA REDDEN TAKEN 080889

02/04/1991 DEPO OF DR WALTER AFIELD TAKEN 092190




02/13/1991 STIP & ORDER CONT TD 040891






02/22/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING-MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT 02/25

02/22/1991 AT 9:30AM

02/25/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS-COURT,STATE & DEFENSE

02/25/1991 CLERKS MOTION NOTES


02/25/1991 TO SUPPRESS: TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT





03/01/1991 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS,

03/01/1991 ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS

03/01/1991 ORDER SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL TO BEGIN MAY 28 THRU

03/01/1991 JUNE 7 BEFORE JUDGE G. SMITH

03/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED DET B REDDEN,SPD 013091

03/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED ROB GROEB,ASA 012591

03/01/1991 PD-SUBP FOR HEARING SERVED CHARLES MCMILLAN 012591


03/05/1991 BINDER - STATE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

03/05/1991 BINDER - CASES CITED IN MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING

03/05/1991 PD-MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S


03/05/1991 FESSIONS

03/05/1991 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT

03/05/1991 LETTER FROM DR D SPREHE TO JUDGE OWENS



03/07/1991 TO APPOINT EXPERT, DA TEBRUGGE TO OBTAIN LIST OF

03/07/1991 COSTS FOR INSTATE DOCTORS, SHARE INFO W/SA DENNEY

03/07/1991 & INTRODUCE INFO TO COURT AT EX-PARTE HEARING

03/08/1991 MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

03/08/1991 SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS

03/08/1991 PETITION FOR REHEARING ON DEFENDANTS AMENDED

03/08/1991 MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ADMISSIONS OR CONFES

03/08/1991 -SIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY



03/14/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY TOBEY C HOCKETT $27.60

03/14/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DR WALTER AFIELD $2800.00

03/19/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DR GREGORY DECLUE $350.00





03/20/1991 STIP AND ORDER FOR CONT TO TRIAL ON 05/13/91

03/25/1991 TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPTS OF HEARING ON 013091,020191

03/25/1991 DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

03/26/1991 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT TO ASSIST DEFENSE

03/27/1991 TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPT OF HEARING ON 020191

03/27/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING: 03/28/91 CALENDAR CALL

03/27/1991 SUPP STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEF DEMAND FOR DISC.


03/28/1991 ORAL MOTION TO CONTINUE 88-3203F INTO MAY DENIED,

03/28/1991 JUDGE TO PREPARE ORDER SETTING CASES FOR TRIAL

03/28/1991 ORDER SETTING CASES FOR TRIAL ON 042291


03/28/1991 SA NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 040191-MOTION TO COMPEL/

03/28/1991 MOTION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY

03/29/1991 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON 032891

04/01/1991 ORDER FILED IN OPEN COURT COMPELLING DR AFIELD TO

04/01/1991 COMPLETE HIS EXAMINATION OF E. JOHNSON

04/01/1991 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERPETUATE


04/01/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: S/A

04/01/1991 MOTION TO COMPEL-GRANTED, DR AFIELD IS TO COMPLETE

04/01/1991 HIS EXAMINATION BY 041591, S/A MOTION TO PERPETUATE

04/01/1991 TESTIMONY-GRANTED

04/01/1991 AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING ON DEFENDANTS AMENDED

04/01/1991 MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ADMISSIONS OR

04/01/1991 CONFESSIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

04/02/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/05/91 WITH JUDGE SILVER-

04/02/1991 TOOTH





04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED T.J. BROOM,SFD 040291

04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED J.C. HANLON,SFD 040291

04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED LINDA JONES 040291

04/03/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL N/SERVED R PETERSON,SFD 040291

04/04/1991 LETTER FROM E. MORELAND TO TOBEY W/ATTACHED STATES

04/04/1991 RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY

04/04/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/05/91

04/04/1991 MOTION TO SET EXAMINATION

04/04/1991 NOT OF TAKING DEPOSITION

04/05/1991 EVIDENCE RECORD FOR MOTION ON 040591

04/05/1991 NOT. OF HEARING 04/17&18

04/05/1991 MOTION TO REDACT TAPE CONFESSION

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED RENA LAMPHER 040391

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL N/SERVED BRIDGETTE CHAPMAN 040391

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED MADELYN LUZIER 040391

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED W PEARSON CLACK, MD 040391

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED BERTY CLINE 040391

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT B STANTON,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF R HINESLEY,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF G POTTER,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT G SELZER,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET G CONNER,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT HARRINGTON,SPD 040491

04/05/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED CPT D BLOUGH,SPD 040491


04/05/1991 MOTION TO SET EXAMINATION GRANTED, JUDGE HOWEVER

04/05/1991 DOES NOT EXPECT EXAM TO BE DONE SAT OR SUN, APR 6

04/05/1991 OR 7; SA ORAL MOTION TO BE PRESENT AT EXAM GRANTED


04/05/1991 AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING ON DEF'S AMENDED





04/05/1991 FESSIONS DENIED, JUDGE ASKS FOR ORDER; MOTION TO

04/05/1991 COMPEL DENIED; MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEF'S


04/05/1991 FESSIONS DENIED

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED CPT RON BATY,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED LT J FULTON,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET J SAPP,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF M MILLER,SPD 040591

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET B SULLIVAN,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT P GRIFFIN,SPD 040491

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED LT A F HOGLE,SPD 040391

04/08/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET L BLAIR,SPD 040491


04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET R KORICH,SPD 040491

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET S HAYES,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET LACERTOSA,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF K CASTRO,SPD 040491

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT H HICKOK,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TECH J REAMS,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET P SUTTON,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED PROP OFFICER,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET G JANKINS,SPD 040491

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TECH ZAGORSKI,SSO 040591

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET L KIMBALL,SPD 040891

04/09/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TECH J TUTSOCK,SPD 040891


04/10/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DR RICHARD OFSHE $9,048.89

04/10/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED MJR R JOLLY,SPD 040891

04/10/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET B REDDEN,SPD 040491





04/11/1991 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

04/11/1991 MOTION TO PROHIBIT IMPROPER AND UNETHICAL PRETRIAL

04/11/1991 AND TRIAL PUBLICITY

04/11/1991 MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEATH AS A POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT

04/11/1991 AND/OR TO QUESTION THE PROSECUTOR REGARDING HIS

04/11/1991 GOOD FAITH IN SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY

04/11/1991 MOTION TO PROHIBIT ARGUMENT AND/OR INSTRUCTIONS

04/11/1991 CONCERNING FIRST DEGREE FELONY MURDER

04/11/1991 MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO EMPLOY A JURY SELECT-

04/11/1991 ION CONSULTANT


04/11/1991 MOTION TO ADVANCE CASE ON TRIAL DOCKET AND SET

04/11/1991 TRIAL ORDER

04/11/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF PRESTIA,SPD 041091


04/11/1991 MOTION RECORD FILED BY CLERK: S/A MOTION TO ADVANCE

04/11/1991 CASE ON TRIAL DOCKET-TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

04/11/1991 MOTION RECORD FILED BY CLERK: D/A MOTION TO DIS-

04/11/1991 QUALIFY JUDGE-TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

04/11/1991 COPY OF MOTION FOR INTERSTATE EXTRADITION OF A

04/11/1991 WITNESS

04/11/1991 ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTRADITION OF WITNESS

04/11/1991 CERTIFICATION ON MOTION FOR EXTRADITION


04/11/1991 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED VIRGINIA CASEY 040891

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED NADINE GARBER,SPD 041091

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF CHURCHILL,SPD 041091

04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET BEECHER,SPD 041091




04/12/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF HARDEE,SPD 041291

04/12/1991 LETTER TO JUDGE FROM STATE ATTORNEY

04/12/1991 ORDER OF COMMISSION

04/12/1991 MOTION FOR EXPENSES

04/12/1991 MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANT TRANSPORTED AND TO EXCLUDE

04/12/1991 THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FROM BEING PRESENT

04/12/1991 DURING EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT

04/12/1991 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE (#23) TO PRECLUDE TES

04/12/1991 TIMONY REGARDING ALLEGED SEMEN OR SPERM FOUND IN-

04/12/1991 SIDE THE VICTIM

04/12/1991 MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE


04/12/1991 ORDER







04/15/1991 ORDER ON MOTION TO ADVANCE CASE ON TRIAL DOCKET

04/15/1991 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY

04/15/1991 STANDBY SUBPOENA FOR JURY TRIAL / OFFICER HARDEE / SERVED

04/16/1991 S/A NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 041691

04/16/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: ON SA'S

04/16/1991 AFFIDAVIT/PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, COURT

04/16/1991 ORDERS DR AFIELD APPEAR IN COURT 041891 @ 10 AM

04/16/1991 AFFIDAVIT/PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE


04/16/1991 MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

04/17/1991 ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC FOR EXPEDITED TRANSCRIPT




04/17/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY TOUCH OF ART GALLERY $58.68

04/17/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY SPEEDY PHOTO $246.35

04/17/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: DA ORAL

04/17/1991 MOTION TO SET TRIAL DATE CERTAIN DENIED


04/18/1991 MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO EMPLOY A JURY SELEC-

04/18/1991 TION CONSULTANT DENIED; DA MOTION TO PROHIBIT AR-

04/18/1991 GUMENT AND/OR INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING FIRST DEGREE

04/18/1991 MURDER DENIED; DA MOTION TO PROHIBIT IMPROPER AND

04/18/1991 UNETHICAL PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY GRANTED; DA MOTION

04/18/1991 TO PRECLUDE DEATH AS A POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT AND/OR

04/18/1991 TO QUESTION PROSECUTOR REGARDING HIS GOOD FAITH IN

04/18/1991 SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY DENIED; DA MOTION FOR

04/18/1991 PRE-TRIAL RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF PENALTY PHASE

04/18/1991 EVIDENCE DENIED; DA MOTION TO DECLARE SECTION

04/18/1991 922.10 FLA STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIED; DA

04/18/1991 MOTION TO DECLARE SECTION 921.141 FLA STATUTES

04/18/1991 UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIED; DA MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL

04/18/1991 VOIR DIRE AND SEQUESTRATION OF JURORS DURING VOIR

04/18/1991 DIRE RESERVED; DA MOTION TO DECLARE DEATH NOT A

04/18/1991 POSSIBLE SENTENCE DENIED; DA MOTION TO PRECLUDE

04/18/1991 CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE DENIED; DA MOTION FOR ADDIT-

04/18/1991 IONAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING VOIR DIRE ON

04/18/1991 CAPITAL CASE RESERVED; DA MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF

04/18/1991 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES DENIED; DA MOTION IN

04/18/1991 LIMINE DENIED; DA MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTIC-

04/18/1991 ULARS DENIED

04/18/1991 ORDER-STATE IS PERMITTED TO REDACT TAPE CONFESSION


04/18/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF PANICHELLO,SPD 041591




04/18/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED OFF J DENIRO,SPD 041591

04/18/1991 SA-SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET SOWDER,SPD 041591

04/19/1991 DEPOSITION OF DR DANIEL SPREHE, M.D. TAKEN 041691


04/19/1991 MOTION TO PROHIBIT ANY REFERENCE TO THE ADVISORY

04/19/1991 ROLE OF THE JURY AT SENTENCING

04/19/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC

04/19/1991 $877.25


04/22/1991 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

04/22/1991 STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS

04/22/1991 DEF'S AMENDED WITNESS LIST (PENALTY PHASE ONLY)

04/22/1991 ORDER DENYING DEF'S PETITION FOR REHEARING ON


04/22/1991 MISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOV-

04/22/1991 ERY AND MOTION FOR AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEF'S




04/22/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEF'S


04/22/1991 FESSIONS (UNSIGNED)

04/22/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S AMENDED PETITION FOR REHEARING ON


04/22/1991 MISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL DIS-

04/22/1991 COVERY (UNSIGNED)

04/24/1991 ORDER (ON COMPETENCY)

04/26/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO TRANSPORT DEF TO DR

04/26/1991 AFIELD'S OFFICE & TO EXCLUDE THE STATE FROM ATTEN-

04/26/1991 DING - DENIED




04/26/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION FOR DR OFSHE'S EXPENSES -

04/26/1991 GRANTED (REASONABLE EXPENSE)



04/29/1991 ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC FOR EXPEDITED TRANSCRIPT

04/30/1991 MOTION TO SEQUESTER THE JURY DURING TRIAL

05/01/1991 CHALLENGE TO PANEL: DENIED

05/01/1991 WITHDRAWAL OF INSANITY DEFENSE



05/01/1991 ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO PROCEED WITH

05/01/1991 TRIAL ON 042991

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEATH AS A POS-

05/03/1991 SIBLE PUNISHMENT AND TO QUESTION THE PROSECUTOR'S

05/03/1991 GOOD FAITH: DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS

05/03/1991 DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT ARGUMENT AND/OR

05/03/1991 INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING 1ST DEGREE FELONY MURDER:

05/03/1991 DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO EMPLOY JURY SELECTION

05/03/1991 CONSULTANT: DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO DECLARE SECTION 922.10

05/03/1991 UNCONSTITUTIONAL: DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL RULING OF AD-

05/03/1991 MISSIBILITY OF PENALTY PHASE EVIDENCE: DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE CHALLENGE FOR

05/03/1991 CAUSE: DENIED

05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION TO DECLARE SECTION 921.141

05/03/1991 UNCONSTITUTIONAL: DENIED




05/03/1991 ORDER ON DEF'S MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF AGGRAVATING

05/03/1991 CIRCUMSTANCES: DENIED





05/06/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR GREGORY DECLUE $100.00

05/06/1991 MOTION RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: 043091 MOTION TO

05/06/1991 SEQUESTER JURY DURING TRIAL-DENIED, MOTION TO CONT

05/06/1991 RESERVE RULING, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE-RESERVE RUL-

05/06/1991 ING, 050191 MOTION FOR CONT-RESERVED RULING, MOT

05/06/1991 TO CONSOLIDATE-RESERVE RULING, MOTION TO CHALLENGE

05/06/1991 TO PANEL-DENIED, 050291 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE-RE-

05/06/1991 SERVE RULING, 050691 D/A MOTION TO COMPEL-GRANTED

05/06/1991 (W/IN 5 DAYS), D/A MOTION TO COMPEL NOTES-GRANTED,

05/06/1991 NOTES ARE TO BE PROVIDED W/IN 5 DAYS OR JUDGE WILL

05/06/1991 NOT ALLOW MR BENNETT AS A WITNESS, D/A RENEWS MOT

05/06/1991 TO SEQUESTER JURY-DENIED

05/06/1991 JURY SEATING CHART (3 PAGES)




05/13/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED TIM FOWLER 051391


05/14/1991 MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO HAIR COMPARISON EVIDENCE

05/14/1991 MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO FIBER COMPARISON EVIDENCE

05/14/1991 MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AND MOTION TO CHALL-

05/14/1991 ENGE GRAND JURY PANEL


05/14/1991 MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VICTIM




05/15/1991 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 051691

05/15/1991 MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT WITNESS IN THE FEILD OF



05/15/1991 MOTION FOR DISCHARGE


05/15/1991 AMENDED SUPP STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE DEMAND


05/15/1991 PETIITON & ORDER TO PAY HATIN COURT RPTG $14.40

05/15/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR ROBERT STEELE $300.00

05/15/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DR DANIEL SPREHE $900.00

05/15/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DIANE MILLER & ASSOC $24.00

05/15/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR HEARING SERVED CHERYL BOTTORFF

05/15/1991 051591

05/16/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY KATHARINE H PRATT $148.10



05/16/1991 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO

05/16/1991 FIBER COMPARISON


05/16/1991 HAIR COMPARISON

05/16/1991 ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT WITNESS IN THE FIELD OF



05/16/1991 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VICTIM

05/16/1991 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICT

05/16/1991 MENT

05/16/1991 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CHALLENGE

05/16/1991 GRAND JURY PANEL





05/16/1991 COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENT OF E. JOHNSON

05/16/1991 MOTION RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: S/A MOTION TO

05/16/1991 REDACT TAPE-GRANTED, D/A MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO

05/16/1991 HAIR COMPARISON EVIDENCE-DENIED, D/A MOTION IN

05/16/1991 LIMINE AS TO FIBER COMPARISON EVIDENCE-DENIED, D/A

05/16/1991 MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT WITNESS IN THE FIELD OF

05/16/1991 HAIR AND FIBER ANALYSIS-GRANTED, D/A MOTION IN

05/16/1991 LIMINE AS TO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VICTIM-DENIED, D/A

05/16/1991 MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT-DENIED, D/A MOTION TO

05/16/1991 CHALLENGE GRAND JURY PANEL-DENIED, MOTIONS IN

05/16/1991 LIMINE #1-#22 DENIED, MOTION IN LIMINE #23-RESERVE

05/16/1991 AT THIS TIME, D/A MOTION TO PROHIBIT ANY REFERENCE

05/16/1991 TO ADVISORY ROLE OF JURY AT SENTENCING-RESERVED,

05/16/1991 D/A MOTION FOR DISCHARGE-NOT HEARD, TO BE RESET

05/16/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE

05/16/1991 $400.00


05/17/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING, MOTION 5/20/91


05/20/1991 ORDER DENYING D/A MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

05/20/1991 ORDER DENYING D/A MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE

05/20/1991 AND SEQUESTRATION OF JURORS

05/20/1991 ORDER DENYING D/A MOTION TO DECLARE DEATH NOT A

05/20/1991 POSSIBLE SENTENCE

05/20/1991 ORDER GRANTING D/A MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL INSTRUCT-

05/20/1991 IONS REGARDING VOIR DIRE

05/20/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR DANIEL J SPREHE $1,250.00


05/21/1991 AMENDED DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST (PENALTY PHASE)

05/21/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT SELZER,SPD




05/21/1991 052191

05/21/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED DET CONNER,SPD

05/21/1991 052191

05/21/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB FOR TRIAL SERVED SGT R STANTON,SPD

05/21/1991 051791

05/23/1991 SECOND AMENDED DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST (PENALTY

05/23/1991 PHASE)


05/23/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA & VIDEO $16.50


05/23/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY PATRICK BAKER $ 75.00


05/24/1991 VERDICT-GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

05/24/1991 JURY INSTRUCTIONS

05/24/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: DEF FOUND GUILTY BY JURY,

05/24/1991 DEF IS TO REMAIN IN CUSTODY PENDING SENTENCING ON

05/24/1991 TUES 052891 AT 1PM

05/24/1991 MOTION RECORD: D/A MOTION FOR CONTACT VISIT-RESERVED

05/24/1991 AT THIS TIME

05/24/1991 TRIAL RECORD PREPARED BY CLERK: JUDGE A OWENS,

05/24/1991 STATE ATTY E MORELAND/D DENNEY/D NALES, DEF ATTY

05/24/1991 E METCALFE/T HOCKETT/A TEBRUGGE, CT RPTR B PUTNAM,

05/24/1991 CLERK K BILLINGSLEY, JURY SWORN 052091 AT 10:50 AM

05/24/1991 STATE WITNESSES SWORN 052091 BERTY CLINE, OFC MARK

05/24/1991 MILLER, OFC JACK SAPP, SGT DAVID HARRINGTON, WIT-

05/24/1991 NESSES SWORN 052191 JOCELYN REAMS, MADELYN LUZIER,

05/24/1991 VIRGINIA CASEY-ID DEF, SGT HOWARD HICKOK-ID DEF,

05/24/1991 LEONARD P DREIBELBIS, WITNESSES SWORN 052291 PAUL

05/24/1991 BENNETT FBI, VIRGINIA CASEY (RECALLED), DEF B J

05/24/1991 SULLIVAN-ID DEF, WILLIAM WORLINE, OFC DANIAL




05/24/1991 PRESTIA, DEF PAUL SUTTON-ID DEF, SGT ROBERT SUTTON

05/24/1991 ID DEF, WITNESS SWORN 052391 DR WILLIAM CLACK,

05/24/1991 DEFENSE WITNESSES SWORN ROBERT KOPEC, OFC KENNETH

05/24/1991 CASTRO, DET GORDON SOWDER, SGT GARY SELZER, DET

05/24/1991 GEORGE CONNOR, TECH JAMES TUTSOCK, JOCELYN REAMS,

05/24/1991 PRETRIAL MOTIONS-D/A MOTION FOR DISCHARGE-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO SEMEN FOUND IN VICTIM-

05/24/1991 RESERVED AT THIS TIME, RICHARDSON HEARING (REF:

05/24/1991 PHOTO) HELD, D/A ORAL MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE-

05/24/1991 DENIED, D/A RENEWS ITS MOTION TO SUPPRESS-DENIED,

05/24/1991 D/A RENEWS ITS MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENC

05/24/1991 DENIED, D/A MOTION FOR MISTRIAL-DENIED, D/A RENEWS

05/24/1991 ITS MOTION TO SUPPRESS ADMISSIONS STATEMENTS AND

05/24/1991 CONFESSIONS-DENIED, D/A MOTION FOR MISTRIAL-DENIED

05/24/1991 D/A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL-DENIED AS TO

05/24/1991 BOTH COUNTS, D/A RENEWS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF

05/24/1991 ACQUITTAL-DENIED AS TO BOTH COUNTS, D/A MOTION FOR

05/24/1991 MISTRIAL-DENIED, JURY INSTRUCTIONS FILED, SIGNED

05/24/1991 VERDICT RECEIVED, JURY POLLED

05/28/1991 MOTION RECORD: D/A MOTION FOR CONTACT VISIT-GRANT

05/28/1991 ORDER TO FOLLOW


05/28/1991 DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO.

05/28/1991 :4--DENIED

05/28/1991 DEFENDANT'S PENALTY PHASE SPECIAL REQUESTED JURY

05/28/1991 INSTRUCTION NO.:5--DENIED





















05/28/1991 INSTRUCTION (HAND WRITTEN) --DENIED

05/29/1991 MARKED COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENT TAKEN FROM

05/29/1991 E. JOHNSON

05/29/1991 COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENT TAKEN FROM E.

05/29/1991 JOHNSON


05/29/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM SERVED JAMES TUTSOCK,SPD 052091

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED TECH J TUTSOCK,SPD 051791

05/29/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM SERVED TECH J REAMS,SPD 052091

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED TECH J REAMS,SPD 051791

05/29/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM SERVED NADINE GARBER,SPD 051791

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED DET SOWDER,SPD 052191

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED OFF K CASTRO,SPD 052291

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED DET KIMBALL,SPD 052191

05/29/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB N/SERVED OFF R KORICH,SPD 051791

05/30/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: JURY VOTES 8 TO 4 THAT




05/30/1991 THE DEFENDANT BE SENTENCED TO DEATH. DEFENDANT IS

05/30/1991 TO REMAIN IN SCJ PENDING SENTENCING

05/30/1991 PENALTY PHASE RECORD: JUDGE: A OWENS; STATE ATTY:

05/30/1991 E MORELAND/D DENNEY/D NALES; DEF ATTY: E METCALF/

05/30/1991 T HOCKETT/A TEBRUGGE; CLERK: K BILLINGSLEY; COURT

05/30/1991 REPORTER: M MILLER. STATE WITNESSES SWORN: LAWANDA

05/30/1991 GIDDENS-I'D DEF, KATE CORNELL-GOODMAN-I'D DEF.

05/30/1991 DEFENSE WITNESSES SWORN: KENNETH JOHNSON, BRIDGET

05/30/1991 CHAPMAN-I'D DEF, HENRY B JOHNSON-I'D DEF, LEE

05/30/1991 JOHNSON-I'D DEF, MARVIN JOHNSON-I'D DEF, EVELYN

05/30/1991 SYPRETT, JIM SYPRETT, MARGIE JOHNSON-I'D DEF,

05/30/1991 CLARIA LEWIS-I'D DEF, ANGELIA JOHNSON-I'D DEF,

05/30/1991 CHARLENE JOHNSON, WENDY FIATA-I'D DEF. DA MOTION

05/30/1991 VERDICT: PENALTY PHASE

05/30/1991 TO DECLARE DEATH NOT A POSSIBLE SENTENCE: DENIED,

05/30/1991 DA MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: DENIED, DA MOTION FOR MIS-

05/30/1991 TRIAL: DENIED, DA MOTION FOR NEW SENTENCING HEAR-

05/30/1991 ING: DENIED, DA MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: DENIED

05/30/1991 COPY OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE PENALTY PHASE

05/30/1991 JURY QUESTION FROM PENALTY PHASE

05/30/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS #446, 448, 449, 314, 315

05/30/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS #450, 394, 395

05/30/1991 EVIDENCE RECORDS #390, 391, 392, 393

05/30/1991 PROPERTY RECORDS #113069, #113069 (DUP), #113071,

05/30/1991 #113072, #113073, #113073 (DUP), #113076, #113077,

05/30/1991 #113080, #113082, #113359

05/31/1991 DA MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED RENA LAMPHER 051791

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED TIM FOWLER 051791

06/03/1991 PD-SUB DUCES TECUM FOR TRIAL SERVED KAREN RUSHING,




06/03/1991 CLERK OF COURT 051791

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED ROBERT HOLIDAY 051791

06/03/1991 PD-WITNESS SUB SERVED KENNETH JOHNSON 052891


06/11/1991 JUDGMENT RECORDED BK 2304 PG 976, 977

06/17/1991 CASE EVIDENCE CHECK OUT/RECEIPT FOR EXHIBITS


06/17/1991 MOT & ORDER TO PAY NORTON CAMERA & VIDEO $210.00

06/17/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY AAA TRAVEL AGENCY $3420.00

06/17/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY MORRIS-KOPEC FORENSICS $2000.00

06/17/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DIPLOMAT TAXI $75.00

06/17/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HATIN COURT RPTG $84.00

06/17/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY DIANE MILLER & ASSOC $73.60

06/17/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY DR MICHAEL MAHER $1410.00

06/19/1991 NOTICE OF HEARING 061991 REF: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/19/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: DA MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/19/1991 TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

06/20/1991 REOPENED FOR SENTENCING

06/20/1991 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL--DENIED

06/24/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DIPLOMAT TAXI $10.80

06/24/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HOLIDAY INN $488.40

06/25/1991 DEFENDANT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

06/27/1991 WAIVER OF PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION

06/27/1991 C.C.'S OF COURT MINUTES & INFO. FROM ORANGE CO.

06/27/1991 SENTENCING HEARING RECORD: PAM COLEMAN SWORN AS

06/27/1991 STATE WITNESS; DA AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

06/27/1991 (88-3200F & 88-3438F) DENIED, DA MOTION TO PRODUCE

06/27/1991 SENTENCING GUIDELINES GRANTED, DA MOTION TO STRIKE

06/27/1991 PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION MOOT, DA MOVES TO WAIVE

06/27/1991 PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS ON ALL REMAINING CASES




06/28/1991 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD: DEF SENTENCED TO DEATH,

06/28/1991 TO RUN CONSEC TO 88-3200F,88-3198F,88-3438F,

06/28/1991 88-3246F & 88-3202F, COURT STIPS UPWARD DEPARTURE,

06/28/1991 COURT COSTS AND ATTY'S FEES WAIVED

06/28/1991 SENTENCED BY A D OWENS

06/28/1991 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM (STATE'S)

06/28/1991 ORDER (ON AGGRAVATING/MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND

06/28/1991 JUDGE'S SENTENCE)



06/28/1991 UNIFORM COMMITMENT TO CUSTODY OF D.O.C.

07/02/1991 JUDGMENT (AMENDED NUNC PRO TUNC TO 052491 TO RE-

07/02/1991 FLECT CORRECT DEGREE OF CRIME) RECORDED BK 2310

07/02/1991 PG 900, 901


07/03/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DIANE MILLER & ASSOC COURT

07/03/1991 REPORTERS $328.00

07/11/1991 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY FOR PURPOSE OF APPEAL W/

07/11/1991 ORDER


07/19/1991 DESIGNATION TO COURT REPORTER

07/19/1991 WRITTEN DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK

07/19/1991 STATEMENT OF JUDICIAL ACTS TO BE REVIEWED

07/22/1991 NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION OF DR. MAHER

07/22/1991 NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION OF DR. AFIELD

07/30/1991 MOTION & ORDER TO PAY DR SIDNEY J MERIN $3,500.00



07/30/1991 AMENDED DESIGNATION TO COURT REPORTER

08/07/1991 LETTER FROM CLERK TO DCA RE: ORDER OF INSOLVENCY




08/15/1991 PET & ORDER TO PAY AAA TRAVEL AGENCY $2,359.00

08/15/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY HOLIDAY INN $487.81

08/15/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY DIPLOMAT TAXI $225.00

08/19/1991 LETTER FROM SUPREME CT TO CLERK RE: EXTENSION OF

08/19/1991 TIME UNTIL 11/21/91 W/INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

08/19/1991 RECEIPT

09/04/1991 PETITION & ORDER TO PAY SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,

09/04/1991 TALLAHASSEE $250.00

11/04/1991 DESIGNATION OF PD TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR

11/04/1991 HANDLING OF APPEAL

11/06/1991 PET & ORDER FOR PAYMENT TO MARTHA MILLER (COURT

11/06/1991 REPORTER) $1458.20

11/13/1991 PET & ORDER FOR COST TO PAY DR MAHER $2480.00

11/14/1991 LETTER FROM CLERK TO SUPREME CT RE: REQUEST FOR

11/14/1991 EXTENSION ON 1 WEEK TO COMPLETE APPEAL RECORD

11/22/1991 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO 12/02/91 FROM SUPREME

11/22/1991 CT

11/25/1991 MOTION & ORDER FOR PAYMENT TO PAY DR MICHAEL S

11/25/1991 MAHER $960.00


12/04/1991 INDEX & COVERSHEET W/APPEAL SENT TO SUPREME CT

12/04/1991 ALONG W/48 APPEAL VOLUMES:SENT FEDERAL EXPRESS



12/28/1991 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFS MOTION TO DECLARE

12/28/1991 SECT. 921.141 F.S. UNCONSTITUTIONAL

02/11/1993 PETITION & ORDER FOR COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $400

02/11/1993 TO NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE

06/28/1993 PET AND ORDER FOR COSTS PAYABLE TO TOBEY C HOCKETT

06/28/1993 IN THE AMOUNT OF $32.80 W/ATTACHMENTS




10/25/1995 MANDATE & OPINION RET.FROM SUPREME CT OF FLORIDA

10/25/1995 FOR APPEAL 78,336 AFFIRMED ISSUED 07/13/95 FINAL

10/25/1995 10/23/95 (ACK)

10/25/1995 ORDER FROM SUPREME CT.OF FLORIDA FOR APPEAL 78,336

10/25/1995 APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING IS HEREBY DENIED

10/25/1995 09/22/95 (ACK)

01/27/1997 ORDER OF THE COURT SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

01/27/1997 03/10/97 (ACK)

03/24/1997 COVER LETTER FROM STEPHEN KISSINGER, LAW OFFICE OF

03/24/1997 CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE, DATED 3-21-97

03/24/1997 (3-26/MDM)

03/24/1997 MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND

03/24/1997 SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

03/24/1997 W/ATTACHED VERIFICATION, C:SUPREME COURT OF FL

03/24/1997 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME, AND C:

03/24/1997 TRANSCRIPT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HRGN OF

03/24/1997 7-18-96 (PP 36-37 ONLY) (3-26/MDM)

03/27/1997 COVER LETTER FROM STEPHEN KISSINGER, CHIEF

03/27/1997 ASSISTANT CCR, DATED 3-24-97 (3-28/MDM)


03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO EARL MORELAND, SAO, FROM

03/27/1997 PAUL MANN CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-24-97(3-28/MDM

03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO GEOFFREY MONGE, SHERIFF,

03/27/1997 FROM PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, OF 3-24-97

03/27/1997 (3-28/MDM)

03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO STEVE MARONEY, FDLE, FROM

03/27/1997 PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, OF 3-24-97 (3-28/MDM)

03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, ATTY

03/27/1997 GENERAL, FROM PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, OF

03/27/1997 3-24-97 (3-28/MDM)




03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO HARRY SINGLETARY, D.O.C.,

03/27/1997 FROM PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, OF 3-24-97

03/27/1997 W/ATTACHMENT (3-28/MDM)

03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO ROSE PONDER, FDLE, FROM PAUL

03/27/1997 MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED 3-24-97 (3-28/MDM)

03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO JOHN LEWIS, SARASOTA POLICE

03/27/1997 DEPT, FROM PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED

03/27/1997 3-24-97 (3-28/MDM)

03/27/1997 C:CORRECTED LETTER TO PEARSON CLACK, M.D., MEDICAL

03/27/1997 EXAMINER, FROM PAUL MANN, CCR INVESTIGATOR, DATED

03/27/1997 3-24-97 (3-28/MDM)


03/28/1997 ASSISTANT CCR, DATED 3-25-97 W/ATTACHED NOTICE OF

03/28/1997 FILING AND ORIGINAL DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT OF

03/28/1997 MAIL TO ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, ATTY GENERAL(3-28/MDM)


03/31/1997 ASSISTANT CCR, DATED 3-27-97 (4-1/MDM)

03/31/1997 NOTICE OF FILING W/ATTACHED C:DOMESTIC RETURN

03/31/1997 RECEIPT, ADDRESSEE:ATTY GENERAL ROBERT BUTTERWORTH

03/31/1997 (4-1/MDM)


04/02/1997 ASSISTANT, CCR, DATED 3-27-97 (4-2/MDM)


04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174093951 TO ATTY GEN

04/02/1997 ROBERT BUTTERWORTH (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174094165 TO HARRY

04/02/1997 SINGLETARY, FLORIDA D.O.C. (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174093952 TO HARRY

04/02/1997 SINGLETARY, FLORIDA D.O.C. (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174094163 TO ROSE




04/02/1997 PONDER, F.D.L.E. (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174094162 TO STEVE

04/02/1997 MARONEY, F.D.L.E. (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174094164 TO DR. W.

04/02/1997 PEARSON CLACK, MEDICAL EXAMINER (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174094245 TO SHERIFF

04/02/1997 GEOFFREY MONGE (4-2/MDM)

04/02/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P-174094161 TO EARL

04/02/1997 MORELAND, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (4-2/MDM)

04/07/1997 COVER LETTER FROM OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL

04/07/1997 REPRESENTATIVE DATED 4-2-97 (4-21/MDM)


04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174093920 TO GEOFFREY

04/07/1997 MONGE, SSO (4-21/MDM)

04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174093921 TO EARL

04/07/1997 MORELAND, SAO (4-21/MDM)

04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174093948 TO DR. W.

04/07/1997 PEARSON CLACK, M.E. (4-21/MDM)

04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174093950 TO ROSE

04/07/1997 PENDER, FDLE (4-21/MDM)

04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174093949 TO STEVE

04/07/1997 MARONEY, FDLE (4-21/MDM)

04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174093958 TO JOHN LEWIS

04/07/1997 SARASOTA POLICE DEPT (4-21/MDM)

04/07/1997 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT #P 174094244 TO CHIEF JOHN

04/07/1997 LEWIS, SPD (4-21/MDM)

04/25/1997 COVER LETTER TO CLERK FROM CANDANCE SABELLA, ASST

04/25/1997 ATTY GENERAL, DATED 4-21-97 (5-1/MDM)

04/25/1997 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR

04/25/1997 PRODUCTION AND NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS W/ATTACHED




04/25/1997 APPENDIX AND PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS "A," "B," AND

04/25/1997 "C" (C/JUDGE OWENS 5-1-97) (5-1/MDM)

05/13/1997 COVER LETTER FROM THERESA MARVIN, OFFICE OF CCR,

05/13/1997 DATED 5-9-97 (5-21/MDM)

05/13/1997 NOTICE OF FILING W/ATTACHED C:LETTER TO MARK

05/13/1997 SINGER, ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF SARASOTA (5-21/MDM)

05/15/1997 (CITY OF SARASOTA) OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR

05/15/1997 PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS, OR IN ALTERNATIVE,

05/15/1997 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (5-21/MDM)

05/16/1997 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S

05/16/1997 REQUEST FOR CAPITAL POST CONVICTION PUBLIC RECORDS

05/16/1997 PRODUCTION W/ATTACHMENTS (5-21/MDM)

05/19/1997 STATE ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR

05/19/1997 PRODUCTION AND NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS (5-21/MDM)

06/10/1997 ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MOT. TO TOLL

06/10/1997 TIME IS GRANTED UNTIL 090197 06/17/97 (ACK)

08/05/1997 COVER LETTER TO CLERK FROM CANDANCE SABELLA, ASST.

08/05/1997 ATTY GEN., DATED 8-1-97 (8-12/MDM)

08/05/1997 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (BY CANDANCE SABELLA, ON

08/05/1997 BEHALF OF ATTY GENERAL AS CO-COUNSEL AS PER CS/HB

08/05/1997 1091; C/JUDGE OWENS 8-5-97) (8-12/MDM)

09/11/1997 COVER LETTER FROM TERRI BACKHUS, CHIEF ASSISTANT

09/11/1997 CCR, DATED 9-9-97 (9-16/MDM)

09/11/1997 NOTICE OF LOSS OF DESIGNATED COUNSEL (STEPHEN

09/11/1997 KISSINGER OF CCR, NOW KNOWN AS CAPITAL COLLATERAL

09/11/1997 REGIONAL COUNSEL; NO REPLACEMENT COUNSEL; C/FIRST

09/11/1997 & LAST PAGES RETURNED TO SENDER) (9-16/MDM)

06/08/1998 LETTER TO KAREN RUSHING FROM JOHN MOSER, CAPITAL

06/08/1998 COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL-MIDDLE RE: FILING OF

06/08/1998 ORIG DEF'S NOTICE OF FL SUPREME COURT ORDER




06/08/1998 061098/LAV

06/08/1998 DEF'S NOTICE OF FL SUPREME COURT ORDER W/ATTACHMNT

06/08/1998 061098/LAV


07/01/1998 NOTICE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORDER

07/02/1998 LETTER W/ATTACHMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE

07/02/1998 OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORDER FROM CAPITAL COLL.

07/02/1998 REGIONAL COUNSEL MIDDLE REGION 07/06/98 (ACK)

12/29/1998 DA MOTION TO COMPEL W/ATTACHED COVER LETTER

12/29/1998 010299/LAV

03/24/1999 LETTER TO KAREN RUSHING FROM CAPT COLLATERAL OFFC

03/24/1999 W/ATTACHED NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING SET FOR

03/24/1999 04/07/99 032499MF

04/05/1999 COPY OF LETTER FROM GEOFFREY MONGE'S OFFICE RE:

04/05/1999 DOCUMENTS SENT TO CAPITAL COLLATERAL.(ARH)040699

04/07/1999 TELEPHONIC HRG HELD RE:DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL

04/07/1999 RELEASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS:

04/07/1999 JUDGE ANDREW OWENS,CLERK SHELLY LINTHICUM,STATE

04/07/1999 ATTY DENNIS NALES, DEFENDANT'S ATTY'S BY PHONE

04/07/1999 ABIGAIL DRESSEL & MR.AHMED. OTHER AGENCY REPRE-

04/07/1999 SENTATIVE'S REPORTING BY PHONE:ATTY GENERAL

04/07/1999 CANDANCE SABELLA,REP FROM FDLE MARK BREWER,REP

04/07/1999 FROM DEPT OF CORRECTIONS SUSAN SCHWARTZ,ATTY FOR

04/07/1999 SSO ELECTRA THEODORIDIS APPEARANCE WAIVED,ATTY FOR

04/07/1999 SPD MARK SINGER NOT AVAILABLE.

04/07/1999 *COURT FINDS RULE 3.852 NOT APPLICABLE-THESE ARE

04/07/1999 NOT REPOSITORY CASES.INSPECTION TO BE SET WITHIN

04/07/1999 45 DAYS FROM TODAY;WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THAT

04/07/1999 PROPOSE ANY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS.JUDGE TO HOLD

04/07/1999 INCAMERA INSPECTION RE:SPECIFIC ITEMS FROM SAO




04/07/1999 AND/OR SPD.//040799 SL

04/09/1999 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NOTICE OF

04/09/1999 TRANSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL FOR IN CAMERA

04/09/1999 REVIEW 041299MF


04/16/1999 LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL

04/16/1999 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY MARK GRUBER 0416MF

08/16/1999 LETTER TO CLERK FROM MARK GRUBER

08/16/1999 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING

08/31/1999 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 60 DAYS TO FILE ANY AND ALL

08/31/1999 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS REQUEST

10/28/1999 NOTICE OF FILING 88-3198 GM


11/05/1999 NOTICE OF FILING; FILED#88003198 MM

12/20/1999 D.O.C.'S OBJECTION TO DEF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RECORDS

02/14/2000 LETTER TO CLERK FROM MARK GRUBER, CAPITAL COLLATERAL

02/14/2000 REGIONAL COUNSEL LV

02/14/2000 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING W/ATTACHMENTS LV


02/29/2000 NOTICE OF HEARING / CR

04/03/2000 ORDER ON PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AND COMPLIANCE WITH

04/03/2000 ATTACHED SEALED DOCUMENTS

04/03/2000 ORDER ON PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AND COMPLIANCE WITH

04/03/2000 ATTACHED SEALED DOCUMENTS

05/17/2000 ATT: INTERNAL AFFAIRS, FROM CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL MIDDLE

05/17/2000 REGION, TO CLERKS OFFICE

05/22/2000 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL

05/22/2000 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

06/11/2001 SENTENCING 2001-07-31 15:00 N / 5C OWENS, ANDREW D

06/26/2001 COVER LETTER FROM REBECCA HUNT COURT COUNSEL (RM




06/26/2001 ORDER TO TRANSPORT PRISONER (RM

06/26/2001 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE (RM

06/26/2001 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE ( CERTIFIED COPY DATED JUNE 29, 2001 )


07/31/2001 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD:DEFENDANT PRESENT,COURT ORDERS

07/31/2001 RETURN DEFENDANT TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TODAY,

07/31/2001 STATUS CONFERENCE-TIME TABLES SET FOR MOTIONS,ANSWERS,

07/31/2001 & HEARINGS,JUDGE OWENS PRESIDING (EHA)

08/14/2001 ORDER SETTING HEARING REGARDING PUBLIC RECORD (RM

08/14/2001 ORDER TO TRANSPORT (RM

08/14/2001 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE (RM

08/14/2001 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER SETTING

08/14/2001 FILING DATES (RM




09/07/2001 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR ATTY SINGER (RM

09/17/2001 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE BY THE DEPT OF CORRECTONS WITH

09/17/2001 DEFENDANTS ADDITIONAL PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST (RM

10/03/2001 ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON PUBLIC RECORDS & STATUS

10/03/2001 CONFERENCE (RM


10/10/2001 COVER LETTER FROM LAW OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL(RM

10/10/2001 MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING STATE TO ANALYZE UNIDENTIFIED

10/10/2001 LATENT PRINT FOUND AT CRIME SCENE (RM

10/10/2001 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR OCT 16,2001 (RM

10/10/2001 MOTION FOR RELEASE OF EVIDENCE FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING (RM


10/12/2001 COVER LETTER FOM MARK S GRUBER (RM

10/12/2001 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION (RM




10/12/2001 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 10-16-2001 (RM

10/15/2001 COVER LETTER FROM MARK GRUBER (RM

10/15/2001 AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION (RM

10/15/2001 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 10-16-2001 (RM

10/16/2001 RETURN MAIL/ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON PUBLIC RECORDS AND

10/16/2001 STATUS CONFERENCE (BE)

10/16/2001 TRIAL/MOTION RECORD:DEF PRESENT BY PHONE, JUDGE:OWENS, CLERK:

10/16/2001 KWAYNE, S/A:DENNIS NALES, D/A:MARK GRUBER & MS.GAYLORD, CT

10/16/2001 RPTR:GINGER SAVILLI. MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING STATE TO

10/16/2001 ANALYZE UNIDENTIFIED PRINT - GRANTED. MOTION FOR RELEASE OF

10/16/2001 EVIDENCE FOR TESTING - DENIED FOR EVIDENCE TO BE MAILED, ANYONE

10/16/2001 MAY VIEW EVIDENCE HERE. COURT RESERVES AS TO TRANSPORT OF

10/16/2001 EVIDENCE OUT OF JURISDICTION. AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL

10/16/2001 PRODUCTION - GRANTED CLERK IS DIRECTED TO RESPOND W/IN 15

10/16/2001 DAYS FROM DATE OF ORDER TO MAKE HAIRS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION

10/16/2001 OR EXPLAIN WHERE THE HAIRS ARE. STATUS CONFERENCE IS CONT

10/16/2001 TO 1-15-02 AT 1:30PM


10/31/2001 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION - WITH ATTACHMENTS

10/31/2001 ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - COPY OF EVIDENCE RECORD

10/31/2001 EXHIBIT B - COPY OF OF LETTER FROM SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

11/01/2001 SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

11/02/2001 ORDER TO RELEASE EVIDENCE FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING (RM

11/02/2001 ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION (RM

11/02/2001 ORDER DIRECTING STATE TO ANALYZE UNIDENTIFIED

11/02/2001 LATENT PRINT FOUND AT CRIME SCENE (RM

11/07/2001 COVER LETTER FROM MARK GRUBER,ASSISTANT CCRC (RM

11/07/2001 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING (RM


11/16/2001 COURT APPEARANCE RECORDS, DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, ATTY




11/16/2001 PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT, STATUS CONFERENCE ON DEFENDANT'S

11/16/2001 ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION -------- CLERK'S OFFICE EVIDENCE

11/16/2001 EXHIBITS R, S, T, X , EXAMINED BY COURT (CPN)

11/16/2001 AMENDED RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION - FILED

11/16/2001 IN OPEN COURT 11-16-01 (CPN)

11/30/2001 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE FOR 1-15-2002 (RM


12/26/2001 AMENDED ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE DATE & TIME CHANGE(RM




01/22/2002 MOTION RECORD:DEF PRESENT BY PHONE, JUDGE OWENS; CLERK:

01/22/2002 KWAYNE; S/A:DENNIS NALES; D/A:MARK GRUBER & MS.GAYLORD; CT

01/22/2002 RPTR:J.GIBBS D/A MOTION FOR 30 DAY EXTENTION-GRANTED TO 3-4-02

01/22/2002 STATE HAS 60 DAYS FROM 3-4-02 TO RESPOND



03/04/2002 COVER LETTER FROM MARK S. GRUBER OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL (RM

03/04/2002 MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (AS

03/04/2002 AMENDED) WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (RM

03/04/2002 VERIFICATION FROM DEFENDANT (RM

03/04/2002 APPENDIX AS TO MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT (RM

03/28/2002 ** CONVERTED EVENT HISTORY AS OF 03/28/2002 **

DATE/TIME TYPE LOCATION JUDGE

-------------------------------------------------------


07/31/2001 15:00 CSENT N OWENS, ANDREW D








04/26/2002 MOTION


05/13/2002 NOTICE-FILING




DATE: 06/17/2002 TIME: 11:30 AM


06/18/2002 MOTION


06/25/2002 ORDER



DATE: 07/29/2002 TIME: 3:00 PM


07/22/2002 TRANSCRIPT WITH ATTACHMENTS








DATE: 12/05/2002 TIME: 2:00 PM


12/18/2002 RESPONSE - CRIMINAL - TO STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING









01/16/2003 AFFIDAVIT


01/23/2003 MOTION - AMENDED - AMENDED DESIGNATIONS OF PRO SE CLAIMS ADOPTED BY COUNSEL

03/25/2003 MOTION TO CLARIFY




DATE: 04/10/2003 TIME: 3:00 PM



04/16/2003 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE;ORDER CONCERNING STATES MOTION TO CLARIFY

06/10/2003 APPEAL - ORDER SC03-848


08/18/2003 SECOND MOTION TO VACATE JDGMNT OF CONVICTION/SENTENCE (AS AMENDED) W/SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND W/ATTACHMENTS-(COPY)

08/18/2003 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS UNDER RING V AZ.-(COPY)

08/18/2003 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE VERIFICATIONS BY SEPT. 15, 2003-(COPY)

08/18/2003 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK'S OFF. FROM MARK S. GRUBER-ASSIST. CCC RE:MOTIONS/NOTICES FOR FILING-(COPY)

08/29/2003 CORRESPONDENCE FROM MARK S. GRUBER-ASSIST. CCC RE:DOCUMENTS FOR FILING-(COPY)

08/29/2003 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS UNDER RING V AZ-(COPY)

08/29/2003 NOTICE - AMENDED OF INTENT TO FILE VERIFICATIONS BY SEPT. 15, 03-(COPY)

08/29/2003 DOCKET LINE ENTERED IN ERROR (BR)

09/15/2003 MOTION - AMENDED TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND









DATE: 11/24/2003 TIME: 11:30 AM




12/02/2003 ORDER

12/23/2003 ADDENDUM TO MOTION - AMENDED WITH ATTACHMENT



03/22/2004 CORRESPONDENCE - COMPLAINT


06/18/2004 ORDER FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME-(COPY)




DATE: 03/23/2005 TIME: 1:30 PM













DATE: 08/16/2005 TIME: 1:30 PM



08/04/2005 ORDER






DATE: 09/21/2005 TIME: 9:30 AM





09/15/2005 CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY MARK GRUBER RE: PLEADINGS


09/20/2005 MAIL RETURNED


09/21/2005 ORDER CONCERNING CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER PRO SE FILINGS BY DEFENDANT


09/21/2005 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

09/21/2005 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE /UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER FO THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE 01/07/2011.






12/08/2005 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COUNSEL TO REVIEW PRO SE FILINGS AND SEEK LEAVE TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL CLAIMS



12/27/2005 APPEAL - ORDER SC05-1734


01/03/2006 REQUEST - CRIMINAL

01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 ORDER CONCERNING RECEIPT OF NEW PRO SE FILINGS FROM DEFENDANT; ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE DOCUMENTS

01/17/2006 MOTION DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

01/17/2006 MEMORANDUM OF LAW DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.


01/17/2006 SECOND MEMORANDUM OF LAW DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.




03/17/2006 APPEAL - ORDER SC05-1734

06/22/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED PER ORDER OF COURT (9 PAGES)/ UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.








07/18/2006 PRO SE NOTICE TO THE COURT IN RE TO: WITH ATTACHMENTS-(COPY)



08/28/2006 MOTION OF SUBMISSION OF BINDING PRESEDENT TO TRIAL COURT IN RE TO POSTCONVICTION MOTIONS CURRENTLY PENDING

09/27/2006 PRO SE NOTICE

09/27/2006 CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE OWENS WITH ATTACHMENTS




DATE: 03/01/2007 TIME: 10:00 AM



02/06/2007 REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CRIMINAL



03/01/2007 ORDER FOLLOWING HUFF HEARING; ISSUES TO BE HEARD AT EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH ATTACHMENT

03/06/2007 ORDER AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE

03/28/2007 RECEIPT

03/28/2007 CORRESPONDENCE WITH ATTACHMENT

04/18/2007 PRO SE NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH ATTACHMENT

07/02/2007 APPEAL - SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE / SC07-1158 / PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND / OR PROHIBITION

07/19/2007 CORRESPONDENCE ( DO NOT IMAGE PER ORDER OF COURT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 163 PAGES ) / UNSEALED PER ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT AT STATUS CONFERENCE ON 01/07/2011.

10/04/2007 MEMORANDUM IN LAW





10/19/2007 APPEAL - ORDER FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RE: DEF'S PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND / OR PROHIBITION / SC07-1158

11/05/2007 RESPONSE - CRIMINAL / PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORDER IN CASE # SC07-1158

12/26/2007 APPEAL - ORDER FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RE: APPEAL # SC07-1158 / PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT IS HEREBY DENIED




DATE: 02/01/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM



01/22/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING - CANCELLATION




DATE: 02/22/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM



THE FOLLOWING EVENT: CRIMINAL - MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 02/01/2008 AT 11:00 AM HAS BEEN RESULTED AS FOLLOWS:



02/11/2008 RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASE

02/11/2008 EXHIBITS TO RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASE


02/22/2008 APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA / SC03-848 ( WITH ATTACHMENTS )




02/25/2008 ORDER AFTER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE


03/24/2008 DECLARATION OF "PRO SE STATUS" THEREBY DISCHARGING "OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE' FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE AND/OR ANY OTHER CAUSES RELATED TO PENDING LOWER-COURT PROCEDDINGS AND REQUEST FOR NON-C.C.R.C. "STANDBY COUNSEL"

03/24/2008 PRO SE MOTION TO AMEND DEFENDANTS 3.851/3.850 MOTION(S)

03/24/2008 PRO SE NOTICE TO THE COURT IN RE TO: FAILURE OF BOTH TRIAL ATTORNEY AND STATE PROVIDED POST-0CONVICTION LEGAL TEAM TO INVESTIGATE FACTS CRUCIAL TO PROPER PREPARATION AND REPRESENTATION OF THE DEFENDANT DURING TRIAL AND APPEALS WITH ATTACHMENTS

03/24/2008 PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND WITH ATTACHMENTS

04/14/2008 CORRESPONDENCE FROM LAW OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL



04/17/2008 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S "RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASES" WITH ATTACHMENTS

05/30/2008 STATE'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S "RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON - CAPITAL CASES"




DATE: 08/22/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM






DATE: 09/05/2008 TIME: 11:00 AM







09/16/2008 ADDENDUM TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

11/03/2008 STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE, LIMITED TO DEFENDANT'S "ADDENDUM" TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE

12/15/2008 ORDER DENYING STATE'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISCHARGE OFFICE OF CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM NON-CAPITAL CASES


01/05/2009 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S "ADDENDUM" TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE (RE: MARCH 17, 2008 PRO SE FILING)

01/26/2009 CORRESPONDENCE - PRO SE

01/26/2009 MEMORANDUM OF LAW - PRO SE


02/05/2009 MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANT'S RECENT PRO SE FILINGS



DATE: 03/31/2009 TIME: 2:00 PM










DATE: 04/01/2009 TIME: 2:00 PM










04/02/2009 MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANTS RECENT PRO SE FILINGS

04/02/2009 CORRESPONDENCE (COPY MEMORANDUM OF LAW ATTACHED)

04/06/2009 ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE

04/16/2009 WITNESS LIST




DATE: 08/03/2009 TIME: 9:30 AM



04/28/2009 ORDER - DENIED ON (1) PRO SE MOTION TO AMEND 3.851 MOTION AND ADDITIONAL CLAIMS FOR WHICH EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUIRED; (2) CCRC'S ADDENDUM TO AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITH SPECIAL REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; AND (3) CCRC'S MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANT'S RECENT PRO SE FILINGS

05/11/2009 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR REHEARING


05/28/2009 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR REHEARING

06/08/2009 PRO SE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, OR REHEARING


07/22/2009 ORDER - TRANSPORT (AMENDED)


EVENT: MOTIONS

DATE: 08/03/2009 TIME: 9:30 AM

JUDGE: OWENS, ANDREW D LOCATION: COURTROOM 2 (CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER)





EVENT: MOTIONS

DATE: 08/04/2009 TIME: 10:00 AM



EVENT: MOTIONS

DATE: 08/05/2009 TIME: 9:30 AM


07/31/2009 DISCOVERY EXHIBIT

08/03/2009 ACTION: CORRESPONDENCE FROM DEFENDANT - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

08/03/2009 ACTION: OBJECTION, FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

08/03/2009 ACTION: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC


08/04/2009 ACTION: TRIAL / MOTION RECORD - EVIDENTIARY HEARING - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC

08/05/2009 EVIDENCE RECORD # 25188 ( DEFENSE EXHIBITS )

08/05/2009 EVIDENCE RECORD # 25189 ( STATE EXHIBITS )

08/11/2009 ORDER DIRECTING WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENTS AS TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING HELD AUGUST 3-4, 2009

08/11/2009 ACTION: NOTICE OF FILING - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC

08/11/2009 ACTION: SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED BY MAIL - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC

08/11/2009 ACTION: SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED BY MAIL - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC

08/11/2009 ACTION: SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC



08/11/2009 ACTION: SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVICE UNKNOWN - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC

08/11/2009 ACTION: SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVICE UNKNOWN - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC






08/11/2009 ACTION: SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED MAIL - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC

09/15/2009 ACTION: CORRESPONDENCE - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC

09/15/2009 ACTION: DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION 3.850/3.851 POST CONVICTION RESPONSE AND CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO: - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC

10/30/2009 ACTION: RESPONSE - CRIMINAL - INITIAL WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198NC

11/04/2009 ORDER

11/12/2009 NOTICE OF FILING - EX PARTE LETTER

11/13/2009 ACTION: CORRESPONDENCE - IMAGE AVAILABLE CASE NUMBER 1988CF3198NC

11/13/2009 ACTION: ATTACHMENTS TO INITIAL WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF3198

11/25/2009 CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE ON APPEAL

11/25/2009 STATE'S RESPONSE/POST EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENTS


11/30/2009 ACTION: NOTICE OF FILING INDEX AND ATTACHMENTS TO STATE'S POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENT (RECORD EXCERPTS & PLEADINGS) - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC

11/30/2009 ACTION: STATE'S NOTICE OF FILING ATTACHMENTS TO POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENT (LEGAL AUTHORITY CITED) - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC

12/09/2009 ACTION: REPLY TO STATE'S POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING CLOSING ARGUMENT WITH ATTACHMENT - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC

12/18/2009 ACTION: CORRESPONDENCE - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198

12/18/2009 ACTION: SUPPLEMENTAL/COUNTER RESPONSE - CRIMINAL - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1998CF3198

02/05/2010 ACTION: CORRESPONDENCE - JUDGE - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198

02/05/2010 ACTION: NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988CF3198


09/08/2010 ACTION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE NUMBER 1988CF003198NC




09/16/2010 ORDER DENYING 3.851 MOTION AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH ATTACHMENTS

09/30/2010 ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER DENYING 3.851 MOTION AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH ATTACHMENTS

10/15/2010 APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL ( 3.851 EVIDENTIARY APPEAL )



11/12/2010 APPEAL - AMENDMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL

11/22/2010 APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE ( SC10-2008 / 3.850 EVID )

11/22/2010 APPEAL - ORDER ( FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RE: APPEAL # SC10-2008 )

12/03/2010 ORDER SETTING MANDATORY STATUS CONFERENCE



DATE: 01/07/2011 TIME: 1:30 PM



12/13/2010 APPEAL - DEF'S DESIGNATION TO THE COURT REPORTER

12/28/2010 ACTION: APPEAL - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COURT REPORTER [IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC]

01/05/2011 PHONE CONVERSATION DOCUMENTATION

CRIM(MISC) PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

SENT ON: 01/05/2011 10:40:53

01/06/2011 EMAIL CONVERSATION DOCUMENT / EXHANGE BETWEEN THE APPEALS CLERK & THE SUPREME COURT CAPITAL CASE CLERK RE: CLARIFICATION OF THE APPELLATE RULES FOR PREPARING THE RECORD ON APPEAL


01/11/2011 REPORT CONCERNING STATUS OF RECORD PREP ISSUED AFTER MANDATORY STATUS CONFERENCE ( COPY / ORIGINAL FILED WITH SUPREME COURT )

02/03/2011 MEMORANDUM FROM COURT REPORTERS TO SUPREME COURT RE: APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS





















02/03/2011 ACTION: APPEAL - 1 C.D. CONTAINING ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL OF THE APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS DESIGNATED TO BE COMPLETED FOR THE FOLLOWING APPEAL # 'S : 2D10-5481, 2D10-5482, SC10-2008 & SC10-2219 - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC / C.D. ALSO FILED IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

02/16/2011 APPEAL COVER SHEET & INDEX CREATED AND RECORD FORWARDED TO THE APPELLATE COURT ( SC10-2008 )

02/16/2011 APPEAL COVER SHEET & MASTER INDEX OF EXHIBITS FORWARDED TO THE APPELLATE COURT ( SC10-2008 )

02/16/2011 ACTION: APPEAL - RECEIPTS FOR SHIPMENT OF 6 BOXES TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF THE RECORDS ON APPEAL FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219 - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

02/16/2011 ACTION: APPEAL - RECEIPTS FOR SHIPMENT OF 6 BOXES TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE RECORDS ON APPEAL FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219 - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

02/16/2011 ACTION: APPEAL - RECEIPTS FOR SHIPMENT OF 6 BOXES TO C.C.R.C. OF THE RECORDS ON APPEAL FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219 - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

02/22/2011 ACTION: APPEAL - U.P.S. DELIVERY RECEIPTS FOR ALL PACKAGES CONTAINING THE




APPEAL RECORDS SENT TO THE FL SUPREME CT., A.G. & C.C.R.C. FOR APPEAL # 'S SC10-2008 & SC10-2219 - IMAGE AVAILABLE IN CASE 1988 CF 003198 NC

07/13/2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND/OR TO INVOKE ALL WRITS JURISDICTION (TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED)

07/13/2011 PRO SE DECLARATION OF PRO SE STATUS AND/OR BASIS/MOTION FOR PRO SE ADDENDUM / SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RELATIVE TO PRO SE FILINGS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT AD LITEM "RECORD OF APPEALS"

07/13/2011 APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL / 3.850 EVIDENTIARY


07/14/2011 ACTION: NOTICE OF APPEAL FORWARDED TO SUPREME COURT

07/14/2011 ACTION: PETITION OF WRIT OF HAB. CORP. FORWARDED TO SUPREME COURT

11/13/2012 APPEAL - MANDATE & OPINION / APPEAL # SC10-2008 / AFFIRMED

11/13/2012 APPEAL CLOSED / APPEAL # 2D10-2008 / AFFIRMED

01/03/2013 APPEAL - ORDER - SUPREME COURT / MOT REHEARING -DENIED /SC10-2008

01/18/2013 APPEAL - MANDATE & OPINION

02/05/2016 PRO SE MOTION AND ARGUMENT ESTABLISHING "DUE-DILIGENCE" FOR APPELLATE -PURPOSES WITH- RESPECT TO "NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE" CLAIMS CURRENTLY BRIEFED BEFORE THIS COURT

02/05/2016 ACTION: PRO SE DOCUMENT EMAILED TO COURT FOR REVIEW

02/10/2016 (1) ORDER SCHEDULING CAPITAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; (2) ORDER GRANTING STATE'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PRO SE "MOTION AND ARGUMENT ESTABLISHING 'DUE DILIGENCE' FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO 'NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE' CLAIMS CURRENTLY BRIEFED BEFORE THIS COURT"



02/17/2016 MOTION RECORD

03/31/2016 (1) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SAY PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF HURST V FLORIDA; (2) ORDER DENYING DEFEDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

06/02/2016 FAX VERIFICATION TRANSMITTAL - RE NOTICE OF APPEAL

06/07/2016 APPEAL - ORDER FROM THE SUPREME COURT SC16-959


06/07/2016 APPEAL - ORDER / SC16-959 (DUPLICATE FILING )




06/07/2016 ACTION: FORWARDED BY EMAIL - THE SUPREME COURT NEW CASE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DESIGNATION FOR TRANSCRIPTS TO COURT REPORTERS -


06/13/2016 APPEAL - MOTION



07/06/2016 APPEAL COVER SHEET & INDEX CREATED AND RECORD FORWARDED TO THE SUPREME COURT - SC16-959


07/07/2016 CERTIFICATE OF ADDRESS

07/07/2016 ORDER GRANTING DEFEDNANT'S MOTION TO TRANSCRIBE DEPOSITIONS AND FOR PAYMENT OF THE COURT REPORTER FEES

07/08/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED/TO COUNSEL/SC16-959

07/08/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED/TO SUPR. COURT/SC16-959

07/12/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED/SC16-959

07/18/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED FROM FL SUP COURT / SC16-959

07/18/2016 APPEAL - RECEIPT RETURNED FROM A.G. / SC16-959

12/12/2016 APPEAL - SUPREME COURT ORDER / SC16-959

01/06/2017 DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (HURST V. FLORIDA)

01/06/2017 ACTION: MOTION TO VACATE EMAILED TO COURT FOR REVIEW

01/26/2017 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

01/27/2017 ACTION: FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR REVIEW: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME




07/03/2017 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

07/26/2017 APPEAL - NOTICE





07/26/2017 APPEAL - DESIGNATIONS TO THE COURT REPORTER

08/02/2017 APPEAL - ORDER / SC17-1401

08/02/2017 APPEAL - ORDER / SC17-1401

121

IN THE COUNTY/CIR~U COURT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA COURT APPEARANCE RECORD

·. JUDGMENTANDSENTENCE

STATE OF FLORIDA CASE#: 1988 CF 003198 NC OBTS #: 0000544042

vs JOHNSON,EMANUEL - A:

/' --OWENS, ANDREW D ~n1- \ TYPE~i~bl!ioam

JUDGE: Ir I~ I DATE:

_..,,

APPEARANCE: 0 PRESENT D PRESENT WITH ATIORNE{ 'Jj1'.JOT PRESENT ./ -· - I __ ,,.,.. --!:!.... 0 FAILED TO APPEAR

COURT ORDERED: 0 BW 0 CAPIAS O BOND SET U NO MOD O BOND FORFEITED O SUMMONS O D-6

COURT APPOINTED: 0 P.D. 0 SPECIAL P.D. 0 INTERPRETER O DEFENDANT WAIVED RIGHT TO COUNSEL O JURY SWORN

CHARGES OF: I BOND TYPE PLEA ADJUDICATION CT SQ G NG NOLO AB G NG W/H N.P. D I O I U,U£\,I; UI 0 I AU\,, I URI. VA _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~

D ~ -- - - -- - - - - - D - -

....-r- r: ....., r-i ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ D -

A A - - - ~ - ~ -\ . ' ., - :_ ....;v,- 0- - - - - - ~ D ~ D - D - - -

SENTENCE STATE ATTORNEY: l.i(.. t-.,. .J•-~ 'III~ DEFENSE ATTORNEY: • ·, :? •• - J'1 W'\..t!)"' 7 ..,_.,.

CT SQ FINE C.J. DOC YEARS MONTHS DAYS C.T.S. SUSP.JAIL DcoN~~/ DcoNsEcTo 0<i5TERMW/ 1 1 L__J LJ LJ L.J L__J L.J L.J L__J r 1 [ l [

L__J LJ LJ L.J L__J L.J L.J L__J r 1 [ l [ L__J LJ LJ L.J L__J L.J L.J L__J r 1 [ j [ r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r l r l r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r

D COURT cosTs AS SHOWN ON cosT SHEET D PAYMENT PLAN D JUDGMENT DDuE OVER PROBATION D WAIVE) D CONSOLIDATE WITH 0 OFFENDER WORK PROGRAM ~ ~ ..I"!) 11

PROBATION/ COMMUNITY CONTROL V CT SQ co DOC YEARS MONTHS DAYS CONCURRENT/W CONSECUTIVE TO RESTITUTION 1 1 LJ LJ LJ L_J L.J D D D

LJ LJ LJ L_J L.J D D D

LJ LJ LJ L_J L.J D D D LJ LJ LJ L_J L.J D D D

l j j l

0 EARLY TERMINATION 0 NO EARLY TERMINATION O REVOKE O TERMINATE O ALL ORIGINAL CONDITIONS REMAIN

COURT COMMENTS: lf:j-A.J-;, ~- (). - .. ... ' (' .~ ..1 ...f-. }._ fl-.,..,._ r'~r /'""~-)

V - ' - 0

.. / CASE PLACED ON: 0 NON-FILED STATUS I MOTION($) .,ril HEARD D CANCELLED D UNDER ADVISEMENT

SPECIAL CONDITIONS: BEGIN TERMS WIN ( ) COMPLETE TERMS W/N

0 ATIEND & COMPLETE DUI SCHOOL O ADVANCED DUI SCHOOL O DNA TESTING O RANDOM URINALYSIS O NO CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL 0 ATIEND & COMPLETE VICTIM IMPACT PANEL 0 NO CONTACT O NO HARMFUL CONTACT· WITH VICTIM 0 B.P.O. LICENSE ·MAY APPLY O DRIVER'S LICENSE REC. BY CLERK 0 FINGERPRINTS TAKEN IN COURT AT SENTENCE 0 IMPOUND VEHICLE O 10 0 30 0 90 DAYS D ATIEND & COMPLETE TRAFFIC SCHOOL D LONG D SHORT D PUBLIC SERVICE HOURS D DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSP / 0 IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE D DEFER TO D PTI D TPTI D D LIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 0 NO RETURN TO PROPERTY

D DRUG D ALCOHOL D MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION 0 SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE TREATMENT AS ORDERED ON FIRST ATIEMPT

DONE AND ORDERED IN OPEN COURT SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

THIS DAY OF ,20 JUDGE

NEXT COURT APPEARANCE D SARASOTA [ ] VENICE D STATE'S CONTINUANCE 0 DEFENSE CONTINUANCE LJ COURT CONTINUANCE

0ARRG AT /M 0PTC AT /M D DvoP AT /M DcM Dos AT --/M D PLEA ON D HEARING/ O.U.I. AT __ /M D NJTD JT AT /M D .~.~ /M

._ .. ,., .. H:FORMS/COURT APPEARANCE RECORD.DOC 05115

Filed 07/06/2016 01:09 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL

122

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

CASE NOS.: 1988 CF 3198 NC J 1988 CF 3199 NC

SUP. CT. Case No.: SC16-959

ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF RECORD

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court of Florida dated June

3, 2016. On July 6, 2016, at the Sarasota County Judicial Center, the Court held a status conference

regarding the status of the record on appeal. The Defendant was not present, but was represented by

Capital Collateral Regional Counsel. The State was represented by an Assistant Attorney General, and a

representative of the local State Attorney's Office. Also present were representatives from the Twelfth

Circuit Court Reporter's Office and the Sarasota County Clerk's Office.

At the status conference, a designated representative from the Court Reporter's Office confirmed

that the necessary transcript(s) have been completed and that the hard copy and disk of the record has

been filed with the Sarasota County Clerk. Additionally, a representative of the Sarasota County Clerk's

Office indicated that the record on appeal, as designated by the Defendant in his Directions to the Clerk

filed April 26, 2016, will be transmitted to the Supreme Court no later than tomorrow, July 7, 2016.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida on this b1~y of

July 2016.


123

" .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished by mail, e-mail, or hand delivery to: John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court, Florida Supreme Court, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; Mark Gruber, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected], [email protected]; Julie Morley, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected]; Emanuel Johnson, DC #338043, Union Correctional Institution, 7819 N.W. 228th St., Raiford, Florida 32026-4000; Office of the State Attorney, Attn. Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34237, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attome~eneral, [email protected], [email protected]. on this_,_,-·_·· day of July 2016.

By:Oo*~ Judiciaissistant


124

Filing# 50871443 E-Filed 01/06/2017 02: 17:27 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 88-3198-F Case No. 88-3199-CF-A-Nl (Victim Iris White) Capital Post-conviction Case

DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (Hurst v. Florida)

EMANUEL JOHNSON, Defendant in the above-captioned action, respectfully moves this

Court for an Order, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, to set aside the sentences of death imposed on

him by this Court. This motion is filed in light of a change in Florida law following the decision in

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and the enactment of Chapter 2016-13 on March 7, 2016. ln

support thereof, Mr. Johnson respectfully submits the following:

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Between April and June 1991, Johnson was tried, convicted, and sentenced for several

crimes committed between January and October 1988 against four separate victims. Two of the

victims-Iris White and Jackie McCahon-were murdered, while two-Kate Cornell and

Lawanda Giddens-were not. Johnson's convictions in the noncapital cases were used as

aggravators in both capital cases, and each capital conviction was used as an aggravator in the

other capital case. Johnson v. State, 37 Fla. L. Weekly S665 (Fla. 2012), reh'g denied (Dec. 28,

2012).

On November 4, 1988, Mr. Johnson was indicted for first degree murder oflris White in

Case No. 88-3199 (Vol. 39, p. 6277). The state charged him by amended information on April 19,


125

1991 for armed burglary in Case No. 88-3198 (Vol. 46, p. 8320). The charges were consolidated

for trial, which took place May 20-24, 1991, and he was found guilty on all charges. The penalty

phase trial took place May 28-30, 1991 and the jury recommended death by a vote of eight (8) to

four (4). The court subsequently imposed a death sentence. 1 The judgment and sentence were

affirmed on direct appeal by the Florida Supreme Court.2 Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637 (Fla.

1995), rehearing denied Sept. 22, 1995. Mr. Johnson's petition for writ of certiorari to the United

States Supreme Court was subsequently denied in Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159 (1996).

On March 31, 1997, Mr. Johnson timely filed his first post-conviction motion. Defendant's

Amended Motion to Vacate Judgments of Conviction and Sentences was subsequently filed on

September 15, 2003. 3 An evidentiary hearing was held on August 3-4, 2009. The trial court denied

1 All the aggravators were found by the trial court, not the jury. The trial judge found the following aggravating circumstances: 1) prior violent felony; 2) murder committed during a burglary for pecuniary gain; and 3) murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. The trial judge found 14 mitigating factors: (1) Johnson was raised by the father in a household; (2) He had a (3) He had an excellent with other members; ( 4) He was a son who for his He had an excellent r>1111,1rn,,1'11P·nt

history; He had been a good husband and father; He showed love and affection to his two children; cooperated with police and confessed; (9) He had demonstrated artistic and poetic talent; (lO)"Thc age of the Defendant at the time of the crime"; (11) Johnson "has potential for rehabilitation and in the prison

"The Court can the Defendant life sentences"; Johnson had no s1g111t1c:ant history of criminal activity before 1988; (14) He exhibited good behavior at trial; and (15) He suffered mental pressure not reaching the level of statutory mitigation.

2 Mr. Johnson filed an Initial Brief on February 9, 1994 and raised the following issues on direct appeal: 1) The confessions should have been suppressed; 2) The police seized clothing without providing probably cause that evidence would be found and without describing with particularity the items to be seized; and 3) The trial court should have excused for cause a juror who would vote for death as the proper punishment for all first degree murders and would not consider mitigating factors. On September 12, 1994, Mr. Johnson filed a Supplemental Brief and raised the following claims: 1) The trial comi improperly refused to allow mitigating evidence and arguments and refused to allow evidence that would rebut nonstatutory aggravators; 2) The court below erred in permitting the State to inject irrelevant and highly prejudicial factors into appellant's penalty proceeding through its improper cross-examination of a defense witness and its improper argument to the jury; 3) The court below used an incorrect legal standard in rejecting the mental disturbance mitigator and should instead have found it to exist; 4) Appellant's cause was submitted to his sentencing jury upon incomplete and misleading instructions, resulting in an unreliable penalty recommendation and an unconstitutional death sentence; 5) The felony murder aggravating circumstances is unconstitutional, as it fails to genuinely narrow the class of individuals who may be sentenced to death; and 6) Johnson's death sentence violates the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments because the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance is vague, is applied arbitrarily and capriciously, and does not genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.

3 This amended motion for post-conviction relief raised the following claims: 1) Mr. Johnson received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's mishandling of mental health experts; 2) The State failed to make timely

2

126

the amended motion to vacate in a written order dated September 16, 2010. Mr. Johnson appealed

this denial and timely filed an Initial Brief on June 22, 2011 at the Florida Supreme Court. 4 After

disclosure of exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland and thereby rendered defense counsel ineffective and/or defense counsel was ineffective in failing to diligently investigate and prepare for trial in violation of Mr. Johnson's rights; 3) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and Mr. Johnson received ineffective assistance of counsel when the State offered evidence and argument of sperm after the FBI reported that none had been found; 4) Mr. Johnson did not receive the effective assistance of counsel or the assistance of a competent mental health expert in the penalty phase of his trial; 5) The aggravating circumstance of previous conviction of a violent felony, Fla. Stat. 921(5)(B), was based solely on invalid convictions. Application of the aggravating circumstance violates due process and the Eighth Amendment under Johnson v. Mississippi; 6) The rule prohibiting Mr. Johnson's lawyers from interviewing jurors to determine if constitutional error was present violates equal protection principles; 7) The Florida death sentencing statute is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed by Ring v. Arizona, 8) Mr. Johnson was denied Due Process pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, when the court prevented him from informing the jury about his ineligibility for parole and the possible sentences he would likely receive in other criminal pending cases; 9) Mr. Johnson's sentence of death violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments because the penalty phase jury instructions were incorrect under Florida law and shifted the burden to Mr. Johnson to prove that death was inappropriate and because the sentencing judge employed this improper standard in sentencing Mr. Jonson to death. Failure to object rendered defense counsel's representation ineffective; 10) Execution by lethal injection is cruel and/or unusual punishment; 11) Mr. Johnson's convictions are materially unreliable because no adversarial testing occurred due to the cumulative effects of ineffective assistance of counsel, the withholding of exculpatory and/or impeachment material, newly discovered evidence, and/or improper rulings of the trial court; 12) Mr. Johnson's Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment will be violated as defendant may be incompetent at the time of execution; 13) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence and defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that misconduct; 14) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false evidence in the suppression hearings and defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that misconduct; 15) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by presenting inconsistent theories and defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that misconduct; 16) Defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to introduce evidence of Mr. Johnsons actual innocence; 17) The State used illegally obtained rolled pints; 18) Mr. Johnson's right to due process was denied when the State destroyed potentially useful evidence in bad faith in violation of Arizona v. Youngblood; and 19) The arrest, search and seizure were based on a defective affidavit which contained false statements.

4 Mr. Johnson's Initial Brief contained the following arguments: 1) The lower court CJTed in denying claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to prejudicial disclosure of confidential expe1is; 2) The comi CJTed in denying the claim of ineffective assistance by waiting until the last minute before contacting an eyewitness identification expert; 3) The court med by denying the claim of ineffectiveness with regard to a mitigation expert generally. Counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing repeatedly to properly authenticate medical records; 4) The aggravating circumstance of previous conviction of a violent felony is based on invalid convictions. Application of this aggravating circumstance violates Johnson v. Mississippi; 5) The rules prohibiting Mr. Johnson's lawyers from interviewing jurors is unconstitutional; 6) The Florida death sentencing statute as applied is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fomieenth Amendments as construed by the United States Supreme Comi in Ring v. 7) Mr. Johnson was denied due process pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina; 8) Mr. Johnson's sentence of death violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments because the penalty phase jury instructions were incorrect and shifted the burden to Mr. Johnson to prove that dead was inappropriate; 9) Florida's lethal injection method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment; 10) Mr. Johnson's convictions are materially unreliable due to cumulative enor; 11) Mr. Johnson's Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment will be violated as defendant may be incompetent at the time of execution; and 12) The court erred in denying Mr. Johnson's prose claims.

3

127

oral argument, the Florida Supreme Court denied the motion in Johnson v. State, I 04 So. 3d 1010

(Fla. 2012), rehearing denied December 28, 2012.

On February 12, 2013, Mr. Johnson timely filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to

the United States District Court, Middle District - Tampa Division. 5 At this time, Mr. Johnson's

habeas corpus petition is still pending.

On December 9, 2015, Mr. Johnson filed his first Successive Motion to Vacate Judgment

of Conviction and Sentence concerning newly discovered evidence of microscopic hair

comparison analysis. 6 This motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing by written order on

5 The following issues were raised in Mr. Johnson's habeas eorpus petition to the U.S. Distriet Court: 1) The eonfessions should have been suppressed; 2) The poliee seized elothing without providing probably cause that evidence would be found and without describing with particularity the items to be seized; 3) The trial court improperly refused to allow mitigating evidence and arguments; 4) The State injected irrelevant and highly prejudicial factors into petitioner's penalty phase proceeding through its improper cross-examination of a defense witness and its improper argument to the jury; 5) Petitioner's cause was submitted to his sentencing jury upon incomplete and misleading instructions, resulting in an unreliable penalty recommendation and an unconstitutional death sentence; 6) The felony murder aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional, as it fails to genuinely narrow the elass of individuals who may be sentenced to death. The Court below therefore en-ed in instructing petitioner's jury on this factor and emd in finding it to exist in his sentencing order; 7) Petitioner's death sentence violates the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments because the especially heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance is vague, is applied arbitrarily and capriciously, and does not genuinely naITow the class of person eligible for the death penalty; 8) Mr. Johnson received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's mishandling of the mental health experts; 9) Counsel provided ineffective assistance by waiting until the last minute before contacting an expert eyewitness identification expert; 10) Counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing repeatedly to properly authenticate medical records; 11) The rules prohibiting Mr. Johnson's lawyers from interviewing jurors are unconstitutional; 12) The Florida death sentencing statute as applied is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as construed by the United State Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona; 13) Mr. Johnson was denied Due Process pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, when the court prevented him from informing the jury about his ineligibility for parole and the possible sentences he would likely receive in other criminal pending cases; 14) Mr. Johnson's sentence of death violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fomieenth Amendments because the penalty phase jury instructions were incoITect and shifted the burden to Mr. Johnson to prove that death was inappropriate; 15) Florida's lethal injection method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment; 16) Mr. Johnson's convictions are materially unreliable due to eumulative mor; 17) Mr. Johnsons Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment will be violated as he may be incompetent at the time of execution; 18) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence; defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that misconduct; 19) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false evidence in the suppression hearings; defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that misconduct; 20) The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by presenting inconsistent theories; defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that misconduct; 21) Defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to introduce evidence of Mr. Johnson's actual innocence; 22) The State used illegally obtained rolled prints; and 23) The aITest, search and seizure were based on a defective affidavit which contained false statements. Counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to present these facts at the suppression hearings.

6 The sole claim of this successive post-conviction motion is as follows: Newly discovered evidence regarding

4

128

March 30, 2016. The lower court's denial was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court on

December 9, 2016 in Johnson v. State, 2016 WL 7176765 (Fla. 2016).

B. TIMELINESS

Fl. R. Crim. Proc. 3.851 ( d)(2)(B) states: "No motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this

rule if filed beyond the time limitation provided in subdivision ( d)(l) unless it alleges ... (B) the

fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for in subdivision

( d)( 1) and has been held to apply retroactively." This motion is filed with one year of the issuance of

Hurst v. Florida, the enactment of Chapter 2016-13, the issuance of Perry v. State, and the issuance of

Hurst v. State, all of which established new Florida law. The claims presented herein could not have

been presented before the change in Florida law that these cases and statutory amendment brought

about. Accordingly, this motion is timely.

C. ARGUMENT

On January 12, 2016, in Hurst v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States held that

Florida's capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in light of Ring

v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584. 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002). See Hurst, 136 S. Ct. 616, 193

L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). Specifically, the Court held, "The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge,

to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury's mere recommendation is not

enough." Id. at 619.

On March 7, 2016, the governor signed House Bill 7101 ( Chapter 2016-13 ), which was enacted

for the specific purpose of complying with the ruling in Hurst, into law. See Fla. H.R. Judiciary Comm.,

Crim. Justice Subcomm., Final Bill Analysis to HB 7101 (2016), available at

microscopic hair comparison analysis, namely a recent FBI report retracting expert testimony presented in this case, demonstrates that Johnson's convictions and death sentence violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution.

5

129

In addition to

requiring unanimous jury fact-finding as to certain aspects of capital sentencing, the new law also

imposes the requirement that "a minimum of IO jurors must concur in the recommendation" before a

sentence of death may be imposed." Ch. 2016-13, Laws of Fla. (2016), available at

http://laws.flrules.org/2016/13.

On October 14, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decisions inPeny v. State, So.

3d _, 2016 WL 6036982 (Fla. October 14, 2016) andHurstv. State, _So. 3d _, 2016 WL 6036978

(Fla. October 14, 2016). The Court in Perry declared the ten to two provision contained in Chapter

2016-13 to be unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida. In Perry, the Florida Supreme Court

concluded that the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments require a unanimous jury verdict

recommending a death sentence before one could be imposed. Accordingly, the jury must

unanimously find that sufficient aggravators exist to justify a death sentence and that the aggravators

outweigh the mitigating factors in the case. Finally, if a unanimous death recommendation is not

returned, a death sentence cannot be imposed. Thus, a life sentence is mandated if one or more jurors

vote in favor of a life sentence due to a desire to be merciful even if the jury unanimously determined

that sufficient aggravators existed and that they outweigh the mitigators. Peny v. State, 2016 WL

6036982 at * 1 ( quoting Hurst v. State, 2016 WL 6036978 at * 15) ("'the penalty phase jury must be

unanimous in making the critical findings and recommendation that are necessary before a

sentence of death may be considered by the judge or imposed."') ( emphasis added). See also

Hurst v. State, 2016 WL 6036978 at * 17 n.18.

Retroactive Application

On December 22, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court decided Mosely v. State, ---So.3d ---

2016 WL7406506 and Asay v. State, ---So.3d --- 2016 WL7406538 (Fla. December 22, 2016).

6

130

After conducting an individualized Witt 7 and James8 analysis in each case, the Court decided that

Mosely was entitled to the retroactive effect of Hurst and that Asay (who had not previously raised

a Ring type claim) was not. However, still pending at the Florida Supreme Court is Lambrix v.

State, SC 16-8 and SC 16-56. Lambrix, whose his case was final when Ring was decided, has raised

Ring type error throughout his proceedings. Here, both Hurst decisions are retroactively applicable

to the defendant on three independent grounds: (1) as a matter of fundamental fairness under James

v. State, supra, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) under the Florida retroactivity test

established in Witt v. State, and (3) under the federal retroactivity test first established in Teague

v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and recently applied in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718

(2016). Under any of those retroactivity approaches, this Court should reject the notion of"partial

retroactivity," which is intolerable under the United States and Florida Constitutions. 9 Moreover,

the decisions in Asay and Mosley make clear that determining the retroactivity of Hurst v. Florida

and Hurst v. State claims requires individualized assessments that account for the circumstances

of each capital case, much in the same way that harmless error must be assessed on a case-by-case

basis. If the Court decides to apply James, it must determine if "fundamental fairness" requires

retroactive application. If the Court decides to apply Witt, it must apply Witt's factors on an

individualized basis and conduct a weighing. Here, as explained below, the defendant is entitled

to relief under either analysis.

7 Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) 8 James v. State, 615 So.2d 668 (Fla. 1993) 9 Mr. Johnson recognizes that Asay v. State, ---So.3d --- 2016 WL7406538 (Fla. December 22, 2016) suggests that cases that were final when Ring was decided are not entitled to the retroactive effect of Hurst. However, Mr. Johnson's case should be decided on an individual basis. To deny him the retroactive effect of Hurst, while granting it to similarly situated capital defendants, deprives him of due process and equal protection under the federal constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution. "[R]etroactivity is binary-either something is retroactive, has effect on the past, or it is not." Asay, 2016 WL 7406538, at *27 (Perry, J., dissenting).

7

131

The equitable "fundamental fairness" doctrine articulated in James, which is distinct from

the traditional Witt test, is sufficient by itself to grant retroactivity of the Hurst decisions. Mosley

explained that although Witt is the "standard" retroactivity test in Florida, defendants may also be

entitled to retroactive application of the Hurst decisions by virtue of the fundamental fairness

doctrine announced in James, 615 So. 2d at 669. See Mosley, 2016 WL 7406506, at *19 ("This

Court has previously held that fundamental fairness alone may require the retroactive application

of certain decisions involving the death penalty"). Unlike the Witt analysis in Mosley, which

considered whether Mosley's sentence became final after Ring as a factor in assessing Hurst

retroactivity, the analysis in James made no distinction between pre-Ring and post-Ring sentences.

Id. at *18-19. Rather, the Mosley Court explained that its James retroactivity analysis focused on

whether it would be fundamentally unfair to bar Mosley from seeking Hurst relief, regardless of

when his sentence became final. Id.

Although Mosley was a post-Ring case, the court left open the possibility that pre-Ring

defendants may also obtain retroactive Hurst relief on fundamental fairness grounds. See id. at * 19

n. 13 ("The difference between a retroactivity approach under James and a retroactivity approach

under a standard Witt analysis is that under James, a defendant or his lawyer would have had to

timely raise a constitutional argument, in this case a Sixth Amendment argument, before this Court

would grant relief. However, using a Witt analysis, any defendant who falls within the ambit of

the retroactivity period would be entitled to relief regardless of whether the defendant or his or her

lawyer had raised the Sixth Amendment argument."). "[B]ecause Mosely raised a Ring claim at

his first opportunity and was then rejected at every turn, we conclude that fundamental fairness

requires the retroactive application of Hurst, which defined the effect of Hurst v. Florida, to

Mosley." Id. In other words, to the extent Mosley stands for the proposition that defendants

8

132

sentenced after Ring are categorically entitled to Hurst reliet: it also stands for the proposition that

any defendant, regardless of when they were sentenced, may be entitled to the same retroactive

application of the Hurst decisions as a matter of fundamental fairness as detern1ined on a case-by

case basis.

Johnson raised a Ring claim in his original motion for postconviction relief, the final

version of which was filed on March 4, 2002, shortly before Ring was decided. See Procedural

History, supra. He has reasserted that claim at every point in his postconviction proceedings since

then. Beyond that, the supplemental brief on direct appeal filed on direct appeal of this case has a

claim of error titled "Improper denigration of juror's role in sentencing process." See page 26, sup.

Initial Brief (White). The claim cites defense counsel's repeatedly overruled objections 10 to the

standard jury instructions because the "the standard jury instructions repeatedly stated that the

penalty phase jury's recommendation was only advisory and that the final decision on punishment

belonged to the judge ... The jury [was] incorrectly "led to believe that the responsibility for

determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death sentence rest[ ed] elsewhere," citing

Caldwell v. Mississippi, infra. and Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975). The claim was

denied on the merits based on the Florida Supreme Court's long standing precedent. Johnson v.

State, 660 So.2d 637, 647 (Fla., 1995). This was a Ring claim raised at trial and on direct appeal.

As such, this case falls squarely within the fundamental fairness rationale of James and Mosely.

Anything less than full retroactivity leads to disparate treatment among Florida capital

defendants. See Meeks v. Moore, 216 F.3d 951, 959 (11th Cir. 2000)(new penalty phases on 1974

murders); State v. Dougan, 202 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2016)(granting a new trial in a 1974 homicide);

Hildwin v. State, 141 So.3d 1178 (Fla. 20 l 4)(granting a new trial in a 1985 homicide); Cardona

10 (W 5756-60, 5845, 8325-8326, M 4766-69, 4797, 5779-85), (W 6053-58,8474, 8482, M 5782, 7971-7972, 8076, 8514, 8522)

9

133

v. State, 185 So.3d 514 (Fla. 2016)(granting a new trial in a 1990 homicide), and Johnson v. State,

---So.3d --- 2016 WL 7013856 (Fla. December 1, 2016)(on a direct appeal from a resentencing,

the Court remand for a new penalty phase because of Hurst error in a 1981 triple homicide).

Under Witt, Florida courts apply holdings favorable to criminal defendants retroactively

provided that the decisions (1) emanate from the United States Supreme Court or the Florida

Supreme Court, (2) are constitutional in nature, and (3) constitute "a development offundamental

significance." Id. Hurst v. Florida and the change in Florida law made in its wake satisfy the first

two Witt retroactivity factors: (1) Hurst v. Florida is a decision by the US Supreme Court, and (2)

its holding is constitutional in nature: the Sixth Amendment forbids a capital sentencing scheme

that provides that judges, not juries, make the factual findings that are statutorily required to

authorize the imposition of a death sentence.

The third factor under Witt is also met because Hurst v. Florida "constitutes a development

of fundamental significance," i.e., it is a change in the law which is "of sufficient magnitude to

necessitate retroactive application as ascertained by the three-fold test of the United States

Supreme Court's decisions in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), andLinkletter v. Walker, 381

U.S. 618 (1965)."' Falcon, 162 So. 3d at 961 (quoting Witt, 387 So. 2d at 929) (internal brackets

omitted).

The first Stovall/Linkletter factor-the purpose of Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State

weighs in favor of retro activity as applied the defendant. The purpose of the United States Supreme

Court's decision "is to ensure that a criminal defendant's right to a jury is not eroded and

encroached upon by sentencing schemes that permit a higher penalty to be imposed based on

findings of fact that were not made by the jury." Asay, 2016 WL 7406538, at *9. In Asay, the court

10

134

concluded that the purpose of Hurst v. Florida weighs "in favor" of retroactive application. Asay,

2016 WL 7406538, at *10.

The second Stovall/Linkletter factor-the extent of reliance on the unconstitutional Florida

scheme-also weighs in favor of applying those decisions retroactively. Florida's unconstitutional

sentencing scheme has not just been unconstitutional since Ring was decided in 2002, it has always

been unconstitutional, and it has consistently and systematically infected the tmth-detem1ining

process at penalty phase proceedings since the statute was enacted following Furman v. Georgia,

408 U.S. 238 (1972), including during the defendant's trial. Accordingly,just as Mosley concluded

with respect to post-Ring defendants, the second Stovall/Linkletter factor weighs in favor of

applying the Hurst decisions retroactively in the defendant's case.

The third Stovall/Linkletter factor-the effect on the administration of justice-also weighs

in favor of applying the Hurst decisions retroactively to this case. This factor does not weigh

against retroactivity unless applying the Hurst decisions retroactively could "destroy the stability

of the law, render punishments uncertain and therefore ineffectual, and burden the judicial

machinery ofour state, fiscally and intellectually, beyond any tolerable limit." Asay, 2016 WL

7406538, at *11 (quoting Witt, 387 So.2d at 929-30). Undoubtedly, retroactive application of the

Hurst decisions to pre-Ring defendants will have slightly more impact on the administration of

justice than arbitrarily limiting retroactivity to post-Ring defendants-but that is not the test. As

Justice Perry suggested in Asay, without sufficient rationale for predicting that 175 retroactive

Hurst proceedings would be manageable but that 350 would "destroy" the judiciary, retroactivity

cannot be denied to pre-Ring defendants without violating the United States and Florida

Constitutions. There is no serious administrative rationale for such an arbitrary cut-off. Retroactive

application of new rules affecting much larger populations has been approved in other settings.

11

135

For example, in Montgome1y v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court approved retroactive

application of a new rule prohibiting mandatory life sentences for all juveniles, which one study

estimated could impact as many as 2,300 cases nationwide. See John R. Mills, Anna M. Dom, and

Amelia C. Hritz, No Hope: Re-Examining Lifetime Sentences for Juvenile Offenders, The

Phillips Black Project, available at http://www.phillipsblack.org/s/JLWOP-2.pdf (last accessed

December 30, 2016). In Florida, byway of contrast, "capital cases make up only a small percentage

(0.09 percent) of the 171,414 criminal cases filed in circuit court during the fiscal year 2014-15,

and an even smaller percentage (0.02 percent) of the 753,011 total cases filed in circuit court." Asay,

2016 WL 7406538, at *28 (Perry, J., dissenting).

Retroactivity would also ensure that all defendants' Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights

are protected. "Considerations of fairness and uniformity make it very 'difficult to justify depriving

a person of his liberty or his life under a process no longer considered acceptable and no longer

applied to indistinguishable cases."' Falcon, 162 So. 3d 954,962 (2015) (quoting Witt, 387 So. 2d

at 929). Ensuring uniformity and fairness in circumstances in Florida's application of the death

penalty requires the retroactive application of Hurst and the resulting new Florida law. After all,

"death is a different kind of punishment from any other that may be imposed in this country," and

"[i]t is of vital importance ... that any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be,

based on reason rather than caprice .... " Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 357-58 (1977).

Mr. Johnson was sentenced to death under an unconstitutional capital sentencing scheme, as

made clear by the Hurst decision. His death sentence rests upon the recommendation of only ten jurors.

On the basis of the new Florida law arising from Hurst v. Florida, the enactment of Chapter 2016-13,

Perry v. State, and Hurst v. State, Mr. Johnson files this motion to vacate and presents his claims for

relief arising from the resulting new Florida law.

12

136

CLAIM 1: MR JOHNSON'S DEATH SENTENCE VIOLATES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT VNDERHURST V. FLORIDA AND SHOULD BE VACATED

The Sixth Amendment right enunciated in Hurst v. Florida, and found applicable to Florida's

capital sentencing scheme, guarantees that all facts that are statutorily necessary before a judge is

authorized to impose a sentence of death are to be found by a jury, pursuant to the capital defendant's

constitutional right to a jury trial. Hurst v. Florida held that "Florida's capital sentencing scheme

violates the Sixth Amendment .... " It invalidated Fla. Stat. §§ 921.141(2) and (3) as unconstitutional.

Under those provisions, a defendant who has had been convicted of a capital felony could be sentenced

to death only after the sentencing judge entered written fact findings that: 1) sufficient aggravating

circumstances existed that justify the imposition a death sentence, and 2) insufficient mitigating

circumstances existed to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 620-21. Hurst

v. Florida found Florida's sentencing scheme unconstitutional because "Florida does not require the

jury to make critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty," but rather, "requires a judge to

find these facts." Id. at 622. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court held in Hurst v. State that Hurst v.

Florida means "that before the trial judge may consider imposing a sentence of death, the jury in a

capital case must unanimously and expressly find all the aggravating factors that were proven beyond

a reasonable doubt, unanimously find that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death,

unanimously find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and unanimously

recommend a sentence of death." Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 57-58 (Fla. 2016).

The procedure employed when Mr. Johnson received a death sentence at his sentencing

deprived him of his Sixth Amendment rights under Hurst v. Florida and the resulting new Florida law

requiring the jury's verdict authorizing a death sentence to be unanimous or else a life sentence is

required. In the wake of Hurst v. Florida, the Florida Supreme Court has held that each juror is free to

vote for a life sentence even if the requisite facts have been found by the jury unanimously. Hurst v.

13

137

State, 202 So. 3d 40, 58 (Fla. 2016) (emphasis added). Individual jurors may decide to exercise

"mercy" and vote for a life sentence and in so doing preclude the imposition of a death sentence. Peny

v. State, Slip Op. at 19.

The Sixth Amendment error under Hurst v. Florida cannot be proven by the State to be

ham1less beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. In Hurst v. State, the Florida Supreme Court stated

that error under Hurst v. Florida "is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error

contributed to the sentence." Hurst at 68. "[T]he harmless error test is to be rigorously applied, and the

State bears an extremely heavy burden in cases involving constitutional error." Id. (internal citations

and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, as to Hurst error, "the burden is on the State, as beneficiary

of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's failure to unanimously find all the facts

necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to [the defendant]'s death sentence in

this case." Id. at 68 ( emphasis added).

Per Hurst, "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires ajwy, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to

impose a sentence of death." Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619 (2016) (emphasis added). "The

Supreme Court made clear, as it had in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the Sixth

Amendment, in conjunction with the Due Process clause, 'requires that each element of a crime be

proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt'. The Court reiterated, as it had in Apprendi, 'that any fact

that expose[ s] the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury's guilty verdict is

an 'element' that must be submitted to [the] jury." Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 51 (Fla. 2016). As the

Florida Supreme Court pointed out in Hurst v. State, "[b ]ecause there was no interrogatory verdict, we

cannot determine what aggravators, if any, the jury unanimously found proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. We cannot detem1ine how many jurors may have found the aggravation sufficient for death.

We cannot determine if the jury unanimously concluded that there were sufficient aggravating factors

14

138

to outweigh the mitigating circumstances." 202 So. 3d at 69. The court cannot rely upon a legally

meaningless recommendation by an advisory jury, Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.ct. at 622 (Sixth

Amendment cannot be satisfied by merely treating "an advisory recommendation by the jury as the

necessary fact-finding").

Finally, Mr. Johnson's jury was repeatedly told its reconm1endation was advisory only. In

order to treat a jury's advisory recommendation as reliable, the jury must be correctly instructed as to

its sentencing responsibility under Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985). This means that post

Hurst the individual jurors must know that each of them will bear the responsibility for a death sentence

resulting in a defendant's execution since each juror possesses the power to require the imposition of

a life sentence simply by voting against a death recommendation. See Perry v. State. Mr. Johnson's

jurors were instructed that it was their "duty to advise the court as to what punishment should be

imposed". As was explained in Caldwell, jurors must feel the weight of their sentencing responsibility

if the defendant is ultimately executed after no juror exercised his or her power to preclude a death

sentence. Indeed, because the jury's sense of responsibility was inaccurately diminished in Caldwell,

the Supreme Court held that the jury's unanimous verdict imposing a death sentence in that case

violated the Eighth Amendment and required the resulting death sentence to be vacated. Caldwell, 472

U.S. at 341 ("Because we cannot say that this effort had no effect on the sentencing decision, that

decision does not meet the standard of reliability that the Eighth Amendment requires."). Mr. Johnson's

death sentences likewise violate the Eighth Amendment under Caldwell. The chances that at least one

juror would not join a death recommendation if a resentencing were now conducted are likely given

that proper Caldwell instructions would be required. The likelihood of one or more jurors voting for a

life sentence increases when a jury is told a death sentence could only be authorized if the jury returned

a unanimous death recommendation and that each juror had the ability to preclude a death sentence

15

139

simply by refusing to agree to a death recommendation. Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 330 ("In the capital

sentencing context there are specific reasons to fear substantial unreliability as well as bias in favor of

death sentences when there are state-induced suggestions that the sentencing jury may shift its sense

of responsibility to an appellate court."). In Mr. Johnson's case, the State cannot prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that not a single juror would have voted for life given proper Ca/dwell-compliant

instructions.

The error in Mr. Johnson's case warrants relief. The State simply cannot show the error to be

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror would

have voted for a life sentence and through such a vote mandated that Mr. Johnson receive a life

sentence, Mr. Johnson's death sentence must be vacated and a resentencing ordered. Because the State

cannot meet its burden here, Rule 3.851 relief is required.

CLAIM 2: SOCIETY'S STANDARDS OF DECENCY HAVE EVOLVED SUCH THAT A DEATH SENTENCE CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REST UPON A LESS THA.~ UNANIMOUS JURY RECOMMENDATION OF DEATH. THUS, MR. JOHNSON'S DEATH SENTENCE STANDS IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT UNDER HURST V. STATE AND SHOULD BEV ACATED.

In Hurst v. State, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that on the basis of the Eighth Amendment

and on the basis of the Florida Constitution, the evolving standards of decency now requires jury

"unanimity in a recommendation of death in order for death to be considered and imposed." Hurst v.

State, 202 So. 3d 40, 61 (Fla. 2016). Quoting the US Supreme Court, the Court in Hurst noted "that

the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by

the country's legislatures.'" Id. Then from a review of the capital sentencing laws throughout the United

States, the Court in Hurst v. State found that a national consensus reflecting society's evolving

standards of decency was apparent:

The vast majority of capital sentencing laws enacted in this country provide the clearest and most reliable evidence that contemporary values demand a defendant not be put to death except upon the

16

140

unanimous consent of the jurors who have deliberated upon all the evidence of aggravating factors and mitigating circun1stances.

Id. Accordingly, the Court in Hurst v. State concluded:

Id. at 63.

[T]he United States and Florida Constitutions, as well as the administration of justice, are implemented by requiring unanimity in jury verdicts recommending death as a penalty before such a penalty may be imposed.

What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment turns upon

considerations of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 (2002). "This is because '[t]he standard of extreme cruelty is not

merely descriptive, but necessarily embodies a moral judgment. The standard itself remains the same,

but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.' Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.

238, 382 (1972) (Burger, C. J., dissenting)." Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 (2008).

According to Hurst v. State, the evolving standards of decency are reflected in a national consensus

that a defendant can only be given a death sentence when a penalty-phase jury has voted unanimously

in favor of the imposition of death. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the "near

uniform judgment of the Nation provides a useful guide in delimiting the line between those jury

practices that are constitutionally permissible and those that are not." Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S.

130, 138 (1979). The near-uniform judgment of the states is that only a defendant who a jury

unanimously concluded should be sentenced to death, can receive a death sentence. 11

11 Former Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul G. Cantero, has written, "The national consensus demonstrates an overwhelming preference for requiring unanimity." Raul G. Cantero & Robert M. Kline, Death is Different: The Need for Jury Unanimity in Death Penalty Cases, 22 St. Thomas L. Rev. 4, 11 (2009). Only three states-Alabama, Delaware, and Florida-pennitted the imposition of a death sentence by a non-unanimous jury before the issuance of Hurst v. Florida. Justice Cantero explained the logically basis of the consensus: "If jury unanimity is required to convict a defendant of stealing a car, all the more should it be required to sentence a defendant to death." Id. Also indicative of the nation's current standard of decency, the American Bar Association recently adopted Resolution 108A, which urges all jurisdictions to require that "[b ]efore a court can impose a sentence of death, a jury must unanimously recommend or vote to impose that sentence." ABA Resolution 108A, available at

17

141

Mr. Johnson is a member of this protected class. His death sentence rests on the recommendation of

only eight jurors. More recently, in Perry, the Florida Supreme Court declared the ten to two

provision in Chapter 2016-13 unconstitutional and concluded that the Sixth and Eighth Amendment

require a unanimous jury verdict before a death sentence can be imposed. In Hurst v. State, the

Florida Supreme Court explained:

Requiring a unanimous jury recommendation before death may be imposed, in accord with precepts of the Eighth Amendment and Florida's right to trial by jury, is a critical step toward ensuring that Florida will continue to have a constitutional and viable death penalty law, which is surely the intent of the Legislature. The requirement will dispel most, if not all, doubts about the future validity and long- tem1 viability of the death penalty in Florida.

Slip Op. at * 17. Today there is no state in the country where a bare majority death recommendation

would support a sentence of death and only one state (Alabama) that currently allows a death sentence

to be imposed with a less than unanimous vote. Under the Eighth Amendment, Mr. Johnson's

execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. His death sentence must accordingly be

vacated.

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF HARMLESS ERROR

On March 7, 2016, Chapter 2016-13 was signed into law by Governor Scott. It substantially

revised Florida's capital sentencing statute. As the Staff Analysis of the Criminal Justice

Subcommittee accompanying HB 7101 (Chapter 2016-13) makes clear, its adoption was intended

to cure the constitutional defect in Florida's capital sentencing scheme identified in Hurst v. Florida,

136 S. Ct. 616 (2016). See House of Representatives Final Bill Analysis, H.B. 7101, at 8 (Fla. 2016)

("The bill amends ss. 921.141 and 921.142, F.S., to comply with the United States Supreme Court's

holding that a jury, not a judge, must find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.").

http:/ /americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/ 2015111111 _ hodres/l 08a.pdf (last visited Oct. 17, 2016).

18

142

In Perry v. State, the Florida Supreme Court held that the I 0-2 provision was unconstitutional

under Hurst v. Florida because to be constitutional the findings of fact and the death recommendation

necessary to authorize the imposition of a death sentence had to be reached unanimously by the jury.

Thus there is no constitutional capital punishment scheme in place in Florida at this time.

The Florida Supreme Court held in Perry that:

[T]o increase the penalty from a life sentence to a sentence of death, the jury must unanimously find the existence of any aggravating factor, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to warrant a sentence of death, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and must unanimously recommend a sentence of death.

Slip Op. at *20. No penalty phase jury in Florida's post-Funnan capital punishment era, including

the jury in this case, has been instructed accordingly. Hence there is Hurst error in this case. The

question remains whether it can be deemed harmless. Hurst v. State claims require individualized

assessments that account for the circumstances of each capital case. Cf. Mosley, 2016 WL 7406506,

at *24 ("As we detem1ined in Hurst, each error should be reviewed under a harmless error analysis

to individually determine whether each defendant will receive a new penalty phase.") ( citing Hurst,

202 So.3d at 67-68; James, 615 So.2d at 669).

An essential component of a harmless error analysis in this case is that it be forward looking

and that it incorporate a cumulative evaluation of all the admissible evidence that could be introduced

at a new penalty phase trial. For example, in Hildwin v. State, 141 So. 3d 1178, 1184 (Fla.2014), the

Florida Supreme Court explained that when presented with a newly discovered evidence claim:

[T]he postconviction court must consider the effect of the newly discovered evidence, in addition to all of the evidence that could be introduced at a new trial. Swafford v. State, 125 So. 3d 760, 775-76 (Fla. 2013). In determining the impact of the newly discovered evidence, the court must conduct a cumulative analysis of all the evidence so that there is a 'total picture' of the case.

In Swafford, the Florida Supreme Court indicated the evidence to be considered in evaluating

19

143

whether a different outcome was probable included "evidence that [had been] previously excluded as

procedurally barred or presented in another proceeding." Swafford v. State, 125 So. 3d at 775-76. The

"standard focuses on the likely result that would occur during a new trial with all admissible evidence

at the new trial being relevant to that analysis." Id. Put simply, the analysis requires envisioning how

a new trial or resentencing would look with all of the evidence that would be available. Under

Swajford/Hildwin that includes evidence that was presented during the defendant's postconviction

proceedings. That includes not only the extensive mitigation evidence that was introduced at the

defendant's postconviction evidentiary hearing, but also the evidence debunking the microscopic hair

analysis that was presented in the successive postconviction proceeding. See Procedural History

above. Also, the law that would govern at a new penalty phase trial must be part of the analysis.

In Hurst v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court cited to the harn1less error review

standard delineated in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. I (1999). Drawing from Neder, the Florida

Supreme Court unambiguously explained in Hurst v. State the harmless-error test that courts should

employ when reviewing Hurst errors:

The harmless error test . . . places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction .... Where the error concerns sentencing, the error is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the sentence. Although the harmless error test applies to both constitutional errors and errors not based on constitutional grounds, the harmless error test is to be rigorously applied, and the State bears an extremely heavy burden in cases involving constitutional error. Therefore, in the context of a Hurst v. Florida error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's failure to unanimously find all the facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to Hurst's death sentence in this case.

Hurst v. State, 202 So. at 68 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Given a review of all of

20

144

the evidence that would be presented at a new penalty phase trial and the entire pre- and post

conviction record in this case, and in light of the requirements that any Hurst compliant penalty phase

scheme would have to meet, the State cannot meet this "extremely heavy burden."

Accordingly, Rule 3.851 relief is warranted. Mr. Johnson's death sentence should be vacated

and a new penalty phase ordered.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Johnson prays for the following relief, based on his prima facie

allegations showing violation of his constitutional rights: I) a "fair opportunity" to demonstrate that

his death sentence stands in violation of the Sixth and Eighth Amendments and Hurst v. Florida, Perry

v. State and Hurst v. State; 2) an opportunity for further evidentiary development to the extent

necessary; 3) leave to supplement this motion should new claims, facts, or legal precedent become

available to counsel; and, 4) on the basis of the reasons presented herein, Rule 3.851 relief vacating his

death sentence of death and substituting a life sentence on the basis, or alternatively a new penalty

phase proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark S. Gruber Mark S. Gruber Florida Bar Number 0330541 Assistant CCRC Email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected] Law Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel Middle Region 12973 North Telecom Parkway Temple Terrace, Florida 33637-0907 (813) 558-1600

/s/ Julie A. Morley Julie A. Morley Florida Bar Number 0085158 Assistant CCRC

21

145

Email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3.851(e)(l}(F)

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have fully informed in writing the contents of this amended

motion with Emanuel Johnson, that I have comp lied with Rule 4-1. 4 of the Rules of Professional

Conduct, and that this amended motion is filed in good faith.

/s/ Mark S. Gruber Mark S. Gruber Florida Bar Number 0330541 Assistant CCRC Email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected] Law Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel - Middle Region 12973 North Telecom Parkway Temple Terrace, Florida 33637-0907 (813) 558-1600

/s/ Julie A. Morley Julie A. Morley Florida Bar Number 0085158 Assistant CCRC Email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected]

22

146


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tme copy in PDF format of the foregoing Successive Motion to

Vacate Death Sentence has been transmitted to this Court through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal,

which will serve a Notice of Electronic Filing to: Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney General, at and

Attorney, 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 3423, and

Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1000, Raiford, Florida 32083 by U.S. Mail, prepaid first class

postage, on this 6th day ofJanuary, 2017.

Mark S. Gmber Florida Bar Number 0330541 Assistant CCRC Email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected] Law Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel - Middle Region 12973 North Telecom Parkway Temple Terrace, Florida 33637-0907 (813) 558-1600

/s/ Julie A. Morley Julie A. Morley Florida Bar Number 0085158 Assistant CCRC Email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected] us

23

147


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant I --------

CASE NO. 88-3198-F CASE NO. 88-3199-CF-A-Nl Victim Iris White Capital Post-conviction Case

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

Appendix A: Judgment and Sentence

148

Y (Cheuk If App/le~) CJ PROBATION VIOLATOR

D COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATOR

D RETRIAL

.. 91066392 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION FELONY ~: 0 RESENTENCE

STATE OF FLORIDA

-vs-

CASE NUMBER __ a_a_-_31_9_9~_r ______ ~ ~ Nlil (;)I-{ .... (') 01-1

EMANUEL JOHNSON AMENDED NUNC PRO~ TO 5/24/91 TO REFLECT CORRECT DEGREE OF CRIME

Defendant

JUDGMENT The Oefendant,, ___ .;;:;EMANUE~ __ L_JO_H_NSO_N ___________ ,belng personally before this

Court represented by ___ AD={.lt,1"--TE=-B_RU""'GG'"'E ______ ~-----, his attorney of record, and having:

(Check Applicable Provision)

COUNT

~ Been tried and found guilty of the following crlme(s) D Entered a plea of guilty to the foifowlng crlme(s) . D Entered a plea of nolo contendere to the following crlme(s)

CRIME OFFENSE STATUTE NUMBER($)

DEGREE CASE OF CRIME NUMBER

MURDER IN TilE FIRST DEGREE 782,04(l)(a) CAPITAL

----------- ----------- --- ---

and no cause having been shown why the Defendant should not be adjudicated guilty, IT IS ORDERED THAT the De fen, dant Is hereby ADJUDICATED GUILTY of the above crlme(s).

The Defendant Is hereby ordered to pay the sum of twenty dollars ($20.00) pursuant to F.S. 960.20 (Crimes Com pen· satlon Trust Fund). The Defendant Is further ordered to pay the sum of three dollars ($3,00) as a court cost pursuant to F.S. 943.25(4).

0 The Defendant Is ordered to pay an additional sum of two dollars ($2.00) pursuant to F.S. 943.25(8). (This provision is optional; not applicable unless checked).

(Check ii Appl/09b/e) D The Defendant Is further ordered to pay a fine in the sum of$ ··------~pursuant to F.S. 775.0835. (This provision refers to the optional fine for the Crimes Compensation Trust F'.1nd

1 and Is not

applicable unless checked and completed, Fines imposed as part of a sentence pursuant to F.S. 775.083 are to be recorded on the Sentence page(s)).

0 The Court hereby Imposes addition al court costs in the sum of $200.00/ttec~WxRMSd,&lixlx lffl8~~"~~~

D COURT COSTS WAIVED.

0 COURT COSTS CONSOLIDATED INTO

Page 1 of __ 2 __

;i:, I:"

'"dll'

~~ tl10

Ii:) t::I

\0 C/l 0 Olr

*

149

Imposition of Sentence Stayed and Withheld (Check If Applicable)

._, 1a

D The Court hereby stays and wltholds the imposition of sentence as to count(s) --and places/continues/extends the Defendant on probation/community control for a period of under the supervision of the Department of Corrections (conditions of probation/community control set forth Jn separate order.) t:ll *

8* :,,::o

sentence Deferred

(Check if Applicable

D The Court hereby defers Imposition of sentence until Until Later Date

TO BB SET ~ ~ ----------wH (date) 6 8

The Defendant In Open Court was advised of his right to appeal from this Judgment by flllng notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court within thirty days followlng the date sentence is Imposed or probation Is ordered pursuant to this ad· Judlcatlon. The Defendant was also advised of his right to the assistance of counsel In taking said appeal at the ex·

""' of tho Stoto ,po, ,howl"' of lodlg'"ey ~

J E

FINGERPRINTS OF DEFENDANT

1.R.Thumb 2. A. Index 3. A.Middle 4. R. Ring 5.R.Llttle

FOR FINGERPRINTS, SEE OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2304, PAGE 977, SARASOTA OXJNI'Y, FIDRIDA

7. L Index a. L Mlddle 9. L. Ring 10. L Little

E: ~ r- :,,:, 0 /11 C:.:l

N '°'..;,;!,: Fingerprints taken by:

- ',,: .

Name and Title

DONE AND ORDERED In Open Court at Sarasota County, Florlda, this day of -------A.O., 19 __ . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and for Ing fingerprints are the fingerprints of the Defendant, __________________ and tha ey were placed thereon by said Defendant In my presence in Open Cot.Jr! this date.

008785 Page ___ ot_L_

> t:"'

~: Q () ti:10

::0 t:l

<.CCI) 0 .... *

*

150

O COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATOR

0 RETRIAL

91066393

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION FELONY

)

1

b:l * 0 RESENTENCE 8*

CASE NUM8ER ___ 8;;..;.8_-3"""1-'-98_-_F _____ ;,c; ~ STATE OF FLORIDA

-vs- AMENDED N!JNC PRO TUNC TO 5/24/91 TO REFLECT CORRECT Q-IARGE

EMANUEL · JOHNSON

Defendant

JUDGMENT The Defendant,, ___ 'l!WI.NlJE ___ L_JOH_NS_ON ____________ ,belng personally before this

ADAM TE:8RUGGE Court represented by ------------------· his attorney of record, and having:

(Check Applicable Provision)

XX Been tried and found guilty of the following crlme(s) O Entered a plea of guilty to the followlng crlme(s) D Entered a plea of nolo contendere to the following crime(s)

COUNT CRIME

BURGLARY WHILE ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS WEAKJN

OFFENSE STATUTE NUMBEA(S)

810, 02

DEGREE CASE OF CRIME NUMBER

1ST P.B.L.

------------ ------------ ---,-- ---~~ )"tl1'1" '..I~ r

------------ ------------ r:;;,. ,,,, ___m__._

--· ·--- ~c t ~ ....------------ ------------ ;;;:: ... : I

-t - 'C:I = .. :h:..·,; bieo Showa why the o,t,rutant sho,ld 001 "' "''""""' '"""' rr IS t=T thO Deteodant Is hereby ADJUDICATED GUILTY of the above crime(s).

The Defendant Is hereby ordered to pay the sum of twenty dolfars ($20.00) pursuant to F.S. 960.20 (Crimes Compen· sa!ion Trust Fund). The Defendant is further ordered to pay the sum of three doll11rs ($3.00) as a court cost pursuant 10 F.S. 943.25(4).

D The Defendant is ordered to pay an additional sum of two dollars ($2.00) pursuant to F.S. 943.25(8). (This provision IS optional; not applicable unless checked).

(Check ii Applicatla) D The Defendant is further ordered to pay a tine In the sum ol $ -·------pursuant to F.S. 775.0835. (fhls provision refers to the optional tine tor the Crimes Compensation Trust F:1nd, and Is not applicable unless checked and completed. Fines imposed as part of a sentence pursuant to F.S. 775.083 are to be recorded on the Sentence page(s)).

NI 'l'l WH .... (') OH

> I:"

'"CJ?;! >l"J ~(') trlO ~ t:i

<i:)(/l 0 Nl *

*

D The Court hereby Imposes addltlonal court costs In the sum or $200.00/1~0 6All<f TIME l:Jlfflt;$200.00 flAlei II~ rtJLI. PUABUANT Te F.S. 2r.S45S.

0 COURT COSTS WAIVED.

D COURT COSTS CONSOLIDATED INTO

Page 1 008782

151

1a

D The Court hereby stays and wit holds the Imposition of sentence as to count(s) __ _ Imposition of Sentence Stayed and Withheld · (Check it Applicable)

and places/continues/extends the Defendant on probation/cof munlty control for a period of unoer the s pervlsion of the Department of Corrections (conditions of probation/community control s t forth In separate order.) gJ :

0 ;,-;o

"1

Sentence Deferred

(Check It Applicable

ira The Court hereby defers imposition of sentence until ----------~ ~ ~ . Until Later Date (date) ~ 8

The Defendiint In Open Court was advised of his right to appeal from ttiis Judgment by filing notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court within thirty days following the date sentence Is lmpol:led or probation Is ordered pursuant to this ad· judlcatlon. The Defendant was also advised of his right to the assistance of counsel in taking said appeal at the expense of the State upon showing of lndlgency.

~OGE

FINGERPRINTS OF DEFENDANT

1. R. Thumb 2. A. Index 3. R. Middle 4. R. Ring 5. R. Little

FOR FINGERPRINTS, SEE OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2304, PAGE 979, SARASOI'A COUNTY, FLORIDA

6. L Thumb 8. L Middle 9, L. Ring 10, L, Little

Fingerprints taken by:

Name and Title

DONE AND ORDERED In Open Court at Sarasota County, Florida, this day of _______ A.O., 19 __ , I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing fin rints are the fingerprints of the Defendant, __________________ and that they wer laced thereon by said Defendant in my presence In Open Court this date.

Page~2~~o'~-2~- 008783

;)> I:"

"cl~ >trJ G"lC"l MO

:l.l t,

to (/l 0 w*

*

152

,•·, '/ 1 ~Jti~i~

(ChtU;k ;n:::;1icable) 0 PROBATION VIOL.ATOR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, lWl!LFTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN ANO FOR 0 COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATOR •

() RETRIAL SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

0 RESENTENCE

STATE OF FLORIDA

-vs-

DIVISION FELONY

CASENUMBER~~~-88~--3~19_8_-r'--~~~~-

»IENOED MJIIC POO rur-c 1'0 5/24/91 'IO REFLECI' OORRECT OiARGE

EW\NlltL JCl-lNSON Defendant

JUDGMENT • The Oelendant ____ ~ ___ L_J_CH_1'SOO ______________ ,,belng personally before this

Coun represented by ___ AON1 __ TE_B_ROOGE ____________ , his atrorneyof record, and having:

(Check Appllcablt1 Provision}

COUNT

XX Been tried and found guilty ol the following crlme(s) O Entered a plea of guilty to the loflowlng crime(s) 0 Entttrtd a plea of nolo conlendere lo Iha lollowlng crlme{s)

CRIME OFFENSE STATIJTE NUM9!:R(S)

810,02

DEGFIEE CASE OF CRIME NUMBER

1ST P,8,L, ~-------~~~~~~-- ------ ------

--- ------------ ------------ ---- ----

------------ ------------- - ---and no cause havi'n11 been shown why lhe Defendant Should not be adJudicated gull!y, IT IS ORDERED TiiAT lhe Deltn• c!ant Is hateby AOJUOICATEO GUILTY of tht above ctlme(s).

The Defendant Is hiieby ordered to pay the sum of twenty dollars ($20.00) pursuanl to F.S. 960.20 (Ctlmtts Comp11n· sarlon Trust Fund). The Defendant Is funher ordered to pay the sum ol three dollars ($3.00) as a cour1 cost pursuanl to F.S. 94J,25{4), ~

.- 0, The Defendant Is ordered lo pay an additional sum ol lwo dollars ($2.00) pursuant to F.S. '943.25(8). Onls provision Is optional; not applicable unless checked).

(Check If Appficab/11) . 0 The Defendant Is fu'1her ordered lo pay a line it1 the sum ol S pursuanl to F;S. nS.0835. (fhls provision refers to lhe opllonal fine for the Crimes Compensation Trust F·1nd, and Is not ar,plicable unless checked and completed. Firies Imposed as par1 01 a se111ence pursuarit 10 F.S. 775,083 ar11 10 be recorded on the Sentence page(s)).

0 The Cou11 hereby Imposes ;1ddlllonal cour1 eosrs in lhe $Um ol $200.00/NO C,A114 Tltt!E tJHl'I~ $200,00 PAie, 114 Ft:JLL f'l:JR3tlAHT Te F.a. f7.:l45S.

0 COURT COSTS WAIVED.

0 COURT COSTS CONSOLIDATED INTO ------------..¥.-0 8 8 0 7 Page 1 01 __ 2 __

153

lmpo11lllon ot Senienc::e S1iye<I and Wllhheld {Check If Applicable)

Sentence Deterred

{Chr,ck If Applicable

1a

0 The Coun hereby s111ys Ind wlthOld$ the tmposlllon ol senience as 10 coun1(s) __ _ and plac1s/conllnuesJex1ends lhe Oelendan1 on proba1lon/communily control for a period ol under Iha supervision of the Department ol Correcllons (condlllons of probalion/community co11uol set lonn tn $epara1e order.)

l'3 The Coun neraby defers lmposilion ol san1ence unlll Unllf Later Date

'lO BE: SET

• (aa1el

The Oetendant In Open Coun was advised ol his right lo appeal from lhis Judgment by ll~lng iotlce ol appeal with 1ru1 Clark of Court within thlny days tollowlng lhe date sentence is lmpased or probation Is o.L(!ered pursuant 10 this ad• Jui:ilcalion. The Oalendant wu also advised ol his right to the as11ls1ance of coun11el In tak'ing said appaal al Iha ex, pense of the State upon showing ol lndigency. •.:,

~~., FINGERPRINTS OF DEFENDANT

1.R. Thumb 2. R. Index 3. R. Middle 4. R. Ring 5. R. Little

FOR Fit-aRPRil'll'S, SE£ OFFICIAL RECORD OCtl< 2304, PAGE 979, SARASOl'A CI:XJN'N, FLORIDA

6. L. Thumb 8. l.. Middle 9. L Ring 10.1.. Ullle

· Fingerprints taken by;

Name and TIiie

DONE AND ORDERED ln Open Court at Sarasota County, Florida, this day or ---.:-----A.O., 19 __ I HERESY CERTIFY lhal lhe above and foregoing fin rints are the fingerprints ol tha Oelendant, and that they wer laced thereon by said Oelendant in my presence in Open Court thl$ date.

JUDGE

008808 Page _2 __ of __ 2 __

154

"


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

CASE NOS. 1988 CF 3198 NC 1988 CF 3199 NC

/

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE POSTCONVICTION MOTION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State's "Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time," filed January 26, 2017. The State requests additional time to file its response to

Defendant's successive Rule 3 .851 postconviction motion, filed January 6, 2017, because recent

developments in the law have resulted in a large influx of successive capital postconviction

motions requiring a prompt response. Upon consideration of the motion, and noting that

Defendant has no objection to the request, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the State's "Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time" is GRANTED. The State shall file its written response to Defendant's successive

postconviction motion on or before March 13, 2017.

DONE AND ORDER,ED in Chambers in Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida on this ~t'A

day of January 2017.


155

•

r


I hereby certify that on this ~ay of January 2017, a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to: Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, [email protected], 3507 E. Frontage Rd., Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607"7013; Mark S. Gruber and Julie A. Morley, Assistant CCRC, [email protected], [email protected], 12973 N. Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, FL 33637"0907; and Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, [email protected], 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota,

FL 34237. ~ _::B, fr By: .tl. ~ ~


156

Filing# 53550817 E-Filed 03/10/2017 09:21:28 AM


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 88-3198-F

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 88-3199-CF-A-Nl (Victim Iris White) Death Penalty Case

STATE'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

COMES NOW, the State of Florida, by and the

unders counsel, and re to Defendant's successive

motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and

in thereof states the fol

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

State Court Procedural History

Emanuel Johnson was with the murder of Iris

White, an woman for whom he had previous done yard work,

and was found as The trial court found the

fol

committed for

( 1) violent felonies; (2) murder

(3) the murder was heinous,

1 Johnson was previously found guilty of the murder of Jackie McCahon in case number 88-3200, which is the ect of a similar Hurst motion; he was also found of murder while armed with a weapon, of a dwell

weapon, and while armed with a weapon in case number 8 8 32 02, and in case number 8 8 3246, and armed in case number 88-3438.

Filed 03/10/2017 09:23 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL

157

atrocious, or cruel. The jury recommended death by a vote of eight

to four. The Florida Court affirmed Johnson's convictions

and sentences on direct appeal. Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637

(Fla. 1995). Johnson's on for certiorari review in the United

States Supreme Court was denied in Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S.

1159 (1996).

In upholding the convictions and death sentences, the Florida

Supreme Court set forth the following factual summary:

On October 4, 198 8, police found the body of 7 old Iris White. She was naked from the waist down and had suffered four stab wounds, one incised wound, and blunt trauma to the back of the head. A of fatal wounds penetrated the lungs and heart. The body also showed evidence of defensive wounds and abrasions near the and anus most li caused by a forceful

by hand or ls.

Police found a screen in the living room had been cut and the lower window raised. The fingerprints of Emanuel Johnson were recovered from the window sill. Police also found two pubic hairs that showed the same microscopic characteristics as Johnson's, though an expert stated that an exact identification was not possible. Johnson had done work for White some years earlier.

After a lengthy interrogation on October 12, 1988, Johnson gave a taped confession to police. He stated that he knocked on White's door to talk about lawn maintenance. When she the door, he then her, choked her to unconsciousness, and then stabbed her several times. Johnson said he then left the house, locking the door behind himself, but forgot to take White's wallet. minutes later he cut open the window screen, climbed in, took the wallet, and left. Johnson said he later threw the wallet in an area where a road surveyor later found it.

Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 1995).

2

158

ARGUMENT

HURST IS NOT RETROACTIVE AND DOES NOT BENEFIT JOHNSON

A rule 3.851 motion for post-conviction relief must be filed

and sentence becoming final. Fla.

R. Crim. P. 3.851(d). Johnson's motion is and must be

summarily dismissed or denied. Johnson's case became final in 1995

fol the affirmance of his sentence on direct . The

Florida Court held that Hurst v. Florida 136 S. Ct. 616

(2016) does not to cases that were final when

the opinion was issued June 24, 2002. _M_o_s~~_v_.~S_t_a_t_e Nos.

SC14-436, SC14-2108, 2016 WL 7406506 (Fla. Dec. 22, 2016).

Therefore, Johnson is not entitled to relief under Mosley, because

Hurst does not retroactively to him. This conclusion is

reinforced by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Asay v.

St ate, Nos . SC 1 6 - 2 2 3 , SC 1 6-1 0 2 , SC 1 6- 6 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 WL 7 4 0 6 5 3 8 , * 13

(Fla. Dec. 22, 2016), in which the Court held that any case in

which the death sentence was final before was decided would

not receive relief based on Hurst. is controlling, and

Johnson's motion must be summarily denied.

While Johnson's first effort to raise a Ring claim occurred

in (he raised it in an amended motion filed

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).

3

159

after

not he

to Ring.

was decided in 2002), it makes no difference whether or

a Ring because his sentence was final

v. State Nos. SCll-2403, SC12-2465, 2017 WL 526507,

*16 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017); Gaskin v. State, No. SC15-1884, 2017 WL

224772, *2 (Fla. Jan. 19, 2017); Asay, 2016 WL 7406538 at *13, and

Mos 2016 WL 7406506 at *18. The Florida Court has set

a clear boundary for the retroactive application of Hurst. Johnson

is outside that boundary. Accordingly, his successive motion must

be denied.

Johnson contends that under James, fairness and uni

require that Hurst be retroactively ied to all cases. Fairness

and uni

that his

no such . Johnson cannot establish

was less accurate than future

sentencing procedures employing the new standards announced in

Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Just like did not

enhance the fairness or efficiency of death penalty procedures,

neither does Hurst. Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400, 409 (Fla.

2005). As the United States Supreme Court has explained, "for every

juries are more accurate factfinders, there is another

why they are less accurate." Schriro v. Summerlin 542 U.S. 348,

356 (2004). Because the accuracy of lJohnson' s death sentence is

not at issue, fairness does not demand retroactive application of

James v . St ate , 615 So . 2 d 6 6 8 ( Fl a . 1 9 9 3 ) .

4

160

Hurst v. State.

As to uni Johnson appears to that any new

development in the law should be applied to all cases. Inherent in

the of is that some defendants will

the benefit of a new development, while other defendants will not.

a line between newer cases that will receive a benefit and

older, final cases that will not receive a benefit is part of the

of is. If it were not this way, cases

would never get resolved. With every new development in the law,

defendants would a new trial or a new

Given that litigation in capital cases can span decades, there

would never be finality.

Moreover, the Florida Court has never the

procedure espoused by Johnson. Indeed, his suggestion that this

Court must incorporate all subsequent changes in the law into the

cumulative analysis required under Hildwin v. State 141 So. 3d

1178 (Fla. 2014) s the rules as well as the

procedural requirements of Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.

1991). Under Jones, the trial court is to both the

newly discovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced at

the trial; in its decision, the court must assess "whether

such evidence, had it been introduced at the trial, would have

resulted in an ff at 916. the focus

5

161

under Jones is what the jury that heard the original trial would

have done. Thus, the correct is is whether the defendant's

newly discovered facts, when viewed through the lens of the

defendant's jury, under the correct law in effect at the time of

the defendant's trial, would have produced an acquittal. 4 The

instant motion seeks to y a new and non-retroactive

legal rule; it should be summari dismissed as untimely and

unauthorized. Waterhouse v. State 82 So. 3d 84, 91 (Fla. 2012).

To do otherwise would effectively render all subsequent statutory

retroactive. Moreover, Johnson's would

unnecessarily and improperly cast doubt on the integrity of the

trial and limit the State's

legitimate interest in maintaining finality of judgment. Witt v.

State, 387 So. 2d 922, 929 (Fla. 1980).

Johnson points to other cases in which laws have been held

4 This is is consistent with the former rule to writs of error coram nobis, which required the reviewing court to assess whether the newly discovered facts, had they been known to the trial court, would have conclusi prevented entry of judgment. v 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979). While.;;....;;.........;...;.. held that Hallman was too strict in terms of requiring conclusive proof, the court retained the backward-looking focus. This view is consistent with maintaining finality of judgment. See Witt at 929-930.

See, e. . (Statutory

v. State 787 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) or decisional

discovered ufacts;" a Witt is."

changes in the law are not newly them as such uwill remove any need to

Id. at 267).

6

162

whol retroactive in support of his case against partial

. Just because some cases have been held

retroactive does not mean that all cases should be so, nor does

this Honorable Court have the to icable,

binding precedent. The Florida Supreme Court has mandated that

Hurst be retroactive only to cases not final when was decided,

and this Court is unable to overrule the authoritative precedent

of the Florida Court. Moreover, Florida is a clear outlier

for any retroactive effect to an based

error. 7 Neither the United States Constitution nor the

Florida constitution mandate retroactive ication of Hurst. The

courts have almost universal held do not have retroactive

application. See Destefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631 (1968) (per

curiam) (holding the Court's decision in Duncan v. Louisiana, which

guaranteed the right to a jury trial to the States was not

retroactive); v. United States 266 F.3d 1245, 1255, 1259

530 U.S. 466 (2000). 7 As by the E Circuit in States, 810 F.3d 568, 575 (8th Cir. 2016), the consensus of judicial opinion flies square in the face of giving any retroactive ef feet to an Apprendi based error. Apprendi' s rule "recharacteriz certain facts as offense elements that were previously thought to be sentencing factors" does not lay "anywhere near that central core of fundamental rules that are absolutely necessary to insure a fair trial." 8 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).

7

163

(11th Cir. 2001) (holding not retroactive under

and that every federal circuit to consider the issue

reached the same conclusion); Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d

864, 866-67 (11th Cir. 2005) that Court

decisions, such as Ring, Blakely, and Booker, applying Apprendi's

rule" in various contexts are not

retroactive); State v. Johnson 122 So. 3d 856, 865 66 (Fla. 2013)

(holding not retroactive in Florida) . 9 See also State v.

Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 393 94, 64 P.3d 828, 835 36 (Az. 2003)

new , many witnesses no

longer available, would impose a substantial and unjustified

burden on Arizona's administration of justice" and would be

inconsistent with the Court's duty to protect victims' rights under

the Arizona Constitution); Rhoades v. State, 149 Idaho 130, 139-

40, 233 P.3d 61, 70 71 (Id. 2010) (holding that is not

retroactive after conducting its own independent analysis

9 The Eleventh Circuit Court of lead case is not retroactive, neither is its progeny. In Jeanty v.

reiterated

retroactive applying its Florida

757 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014), the court its view that 's rule does not

on collateral and if the rule is not on collateral review then neither is a decision rules. This has also been the prior practice of the

Court which has determined that and its progeny were not to be ied in Florida. See

--"'---

v. State, 901 So. 2d 837, 844 (Fla. 2005) (holding that is not retroactive and noting that ~neither the accuracy of convictions nor of sentences and final before issued is serious . ").

8

164

and observing, as the Supreme Court did in Summerlin, that there

is debate as to whether juries or j are the better fact-

finders and that it could not say "confidently" that judicial

"serious diminishes accuracy."). Johnson's fairness

argument pales against the interests of the State. The State

Johnson in good faith under the law exi at the

time of his trial. He received a fair trial. Fairness requires

final in cases; fairness the interests of the victims'

family members be considered; fairness requires Johnson's motion

be denied. However, even aside from fairness, the Florida

Court has made it very clear that Hurst is not retroactive to

defendants like Johnson, whose sentence was final when was

announced. ..;;__;__..;;......k ...... i ...... n 2017 WL 224772 at *2 ("Because Gaskin' s

sentence became final in 1993, Gaskin is not entitled to relief

under Hurst v. Florida.") (citing v. State v. State

2017 WL 526507 at *16 (rejecting defendant's post-conviction

claims "because Hurst does not apply to cases that

were final before was decided) .

CLAIM I: JOHNSON'S SENTENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT

Johnson's first claim alleges error because his death

10 See also Sarasota Circuit Judge Rochelle Curley's order denying Hurst relief in State v. Robert J. Trease, Case No. 1995-CF-2207 rendered March 6, 2017. A).

9

165

sentence was conducted under a procedure later deemed

unconstitutional. As Johnson no relief

because Hurst is not retroactive, no matter what analytical

is . Since Hurst does not to there is

no constitutional error to correct. A Rule 3.851 motion for post

conviction relief must be filed within one year after the j,,~,~~c,n

and sentence are finalized. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 (d). If this

time period res, a motion filed thereafter is

barred unless it alleges:

(A) the facts on which the claim unknown to the movant or the movant's not have been ascertained by the exercise diligence, or

due

(B) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for in subdivision (d) (1) and has been held to apply retroactively, or

(C) postconviction counsel, through neglect, failed to file the motion.

Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2)

ly

Additionally, a "motion filed under this rule is successive

if a state court has ly ruled on a post-conviction motion

chal the same judgment and sentence." Fla. R. Crim. P.

3.851 (e) (2). A successive Rule 3.851 motion may be summarily denied

on the merits " [ i J f the motion, files, and records in the case

conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief." Fla.

R. Crim. P. 3.851 (f) (5) (B).

10

166

Here, Johnson filed his successive Rule 3. 851 motion after

the claims in his initial motion for relief had

been denied. The instant motion was filed on January 11, 2017,

which is well the one-year time limitation after Johnson's

judgment and sentence was finalized in 1996, when his petition for

writ of certiorari before the United States Court was

denied. Johnson v. Florida 517 U.S. 1159 (1996). Fla. R. Crim. P.

3.851(d) (1) (B) (judgment becomes final "on the disposition of the

petition for writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court,

if filed."). Thus, to be reviewed on the merits, Johnson's claims

must be either based on (A) new evidence that would have been

unknowable through the exercise of due dil or (B) a

fundamental constitutional right that has been held to apply

retroactively and was not established before 1996. Fla. R. Crim.

P. 3. 8 51 ( d) ( 2) (A) (B) . Johnson's motion does not meet these

When a constitutional rule is announced, its

apply to defendants whose convictions or sentences are pending on

direct review or not otherwise final. Griffith v. 479

U.S. 314, 323 (1987). In Hurst v. Florida the United States

Court extended its in Ring to Florida's death

penalty procedures, holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury

trial rendered those unconstitutional because

11

167

allowed a judge to make the necessary findings to render a death

Hurst, however, does not to Johnson's case. In Asay,

2016 WL 7406538 at *7 14, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that

Hurst v. Florida does not to cases that were

final when Ring was decided. See also Mosley v. State, 2016 WL

7406506 at *18 ("[W]e have now held in v. State that Hurst

does not apply retroactively to capital defendants whose sentences

were final before the United States Court issued its

opinion in Ring."); 2017 WL 224772 (Fla. Jan. 19,

2017). As Johnson's conviction and death sentence was final long

before Ring was decided, Claim I must be dismissed as untimely.

CLAIM II: JOHNSON'S SENTENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.

Johnson next asserts that any jury recommendation of death

that is not unanimous violates the Amendment. This claim is

untimely, procedurally barred, and meri tless. In iano the

United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment is not

violated in a capital case when the ultimate responsibility of

imposing death rests with the judge.

447, 463-64 (1984), overruled on other

136 S. Ct. 616 (2016). In deciding

iano v. Florida 468 U.S.

by Hurst v. Florida,

the United

States Court the case to Sixth Amendment

grounds and overruled iano to the extent that it allows a

j to find circumstances of

12

168

a jury's fact-finding. Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 618. The Court did not

address the issue of any possible Amendment violation, and

similarly, it did not overrule ~~_i_a_n_o on Eighth Amendment

Court has never held that a The United States

unanimous jury recommendation is required under the Eighth

Amendment.

The Florida Supreme Court has not express overruled the

United States Supreme Court's surviving in iano

moreover, it has no authority to do so. Florida has a conformity

clause in its state constitution that the state courts to

Florida's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments

in with the United States Court's

Amendment jurisprudence. Art. I,§ 17, Fla. Const.; v. State

134 So. 3d 938, 947 (Fla. 2014) (noting that under Article I,

section 17 of the Florida Constitution, Florida courts are "bound

by the precedent of the United States Supreme Court" regarding

Eighth Amendment claims). Even if the Eighth Amendment mandates

unanimous jury recommendations of death, that requirement would

is not entitled to retrial under

CLAIM III: JOHNSON IS NOT ENTITLED TO A REEVALUATION OF HIS PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED CLAIMS.

Johnson next contends that he is entitled to a reevaluation

of his ly l newly discovered evidence claims. At

13

169

the outset, this claim should be dismissed as insufficiently pled,

as Johnson makes no effort to ain which claims he is

to. This claim is also without merit because neither Hurst nor

to breathe new life into denied claims.

In any event, Johnson's previously litigated newly discovered

evidence claims advanced to new facts. Hurst is

a case and does not resurrect Johnson's

previously denied claims, as it is new law. Without an affirmative

determination that applies to him, there is no legal basis

for Johnson to seek reconsideration of any

factual claims.

CLAIM IV: HURST DOES NOT APPLY, BUT, EVEN IF IT DID, ANY HURST ERROR IS HARMLESS.

clear under the controlling case of that Hurst does not apply

because Johnson's case was final before . Even if Hurst were

retroactive to Johnson, however, any Hurst error is harmless under

the facts of this case. In order to be harmless, there must be no

reasonable possibil

Johnson's death sentence.

that the Hurst error contributed to

No . SC 11 112 2 , 2 0 1 6 WL

v. State No. SC16-547, 2016 WL 6036982 (Fla. Oct. 14, 2016) .

14

170

6649941, *28 (Fla. Nov. 10, 2016); Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d at

68. The found the trial court were either inherent

in the jury's verdict or uncontestable under the facts of this

case.

At Johnson's sentencing, the trial judge followed the jury's

ten to two death recommendation. Johnson's death sentence is

supported by a prior conviction for first degree murder, a

ifying aggravator. The Florida Supreme Court has ly

found Ring satisfied where aggravating factors were established by

either or violent felonies, as in this case.

See Miller v. State, 42 So. 3d 204, 218-19 (Fla. 2010); Poole v.

997 So. 2d 382, 396 (Fla. 2008); 965 So.

2d 108 (Fla. 2007); 866 So. 2d 51, 68 (Fla. 2004);

Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 286 (Fla. 2003). The State

acknowledges that the Florida Supreme Court has receded from this

precedent following the Hurst remand. See Franklin v. State No.

SC13-1632, 2016 WL 6901498, *6 (Fla. Nov. 23, 2016) and Johnson v.

State, No. SC14 1175, 2016 WL 7013856, *3 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2016). The

court combined the Sixth Amendment is of the Court

in Hurst and added an Eighth Amendment component to determine

that our state constitution essential a unanimous jury

recommendation and concluded that weighing is a "fact" that must

be found by the jury. However, with a clause in Florida

15

171

binding the court to go no further than the Supreme Court on

the Amendment, such an , in the

State's view, is unsound. See In re Bohannon v. State, No. 1150640,

2016 WL 5817692 . 30, 2016) ( that "Hurst does not

address the process of weighing the aggravating and mitigating

circumstances or that the jury must conduct the

process to satis the Sixth Amendment" and that [. . . J "Hurst

focuses on the jury's factual finding of the existence of an

aggravating circumstance to make a defendant death-eligible[.]");

State v. Belton, No. 2012-0902, 2016 WL 1592786, *9, 2016-0hio-

1581, <[60 (Ohio April 20, 2016) (observing that "Federal and state

courts have upheld laws similar to Ohio's, that if a

defendant has al been found to be el

then subsequent weighing processes for sentencing purposes do not

implicate Apprendi and []" and that "[w]eighing is not a fact-

finding process subject to the Sixth Amendment[.]").

12 The State submitted a certiorari in Hurst asking the Supreme Court to grant review of the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of to include the balancing of

and as an essential element of death Florida v. Hurst, No. 16-998 (Feb. 13, 2017). As

noted, the court's interpretation of Hurst conflicts with at least two recent state supreme court decisions from Ohio and Alabama. In addition, the Federal courts of appeal have uniformly rejected the

that and its progeny a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors or that such 'facts' need to be charged in an indictment. See United States v. Fields 516 F.3d 923, 950 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 993-94 (9th

16

172

Given that Hurst is an application of to Florida, and

the Florida Court has found that

contemporaneous convictions and prior violent felonies remove a

case from the scope of it should also follow that remove

this case from the scope of Hurst. Nonetheless, especially in light

of Johnson's confession, it can still be established that a

rational jury would have unanimous found the aggravating factors

and recommended death in this case. 13 Both , pecuniary

gain and HAC, are uncontestable on the weight of the evidence. In

held:

the in this case, the trial court

The murder of Iris White was committed while the Defendant was in the commission of the crime of burglary, which was committed for financial gain. The Defendant was convicted of Armed Burglary in Case No. 88-3198. Additionally, the Defendant, in his confession, stated that he stole dollars ($30.00) from the victim.

(R48/8812).

Cir. 2007); 486 F.3d 13, 31 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 748 (8th Cir. 2005).

13 Obviously, it is quite a different dynamic entirely to instruct the jury that a death sentence requires a unanimous vote. Had the jury been instructed in 1 of Hurst v. Florida that a unanimous recommendation was additional deliberation would occur. In that case it is likely that all rational jurors, including those in this case that did not recommend death, would have voted to recommend that the Defendant forfeit his life under the facts in this case.

17

173

In finding the HAC aggravator, the trial court found as

follows:

The evidence established several special features this crime from the norm of first

murders. The vict ris White, was a 73 for whom the Defendant did the victim greeted the Defendant at her front door, she was grabbed around the neck and choked. Subsequently, the victim was found in her bed with her removed, her dress up around her waist, and over twenty (20) stab wounds in her upper body. The Defendant, in his confession, stated that after choking the victim and placing her on the bed, he went into the kitchen, took two (2) knives and returned to the bedroom where he repeatedly stabbed her. The medical examiner, Pearson Clack, M.D., testified Mrs. White was stabbed over

(20) times. He observed stab wounds in her face, neck and chest. Six (6) of these wounds her lungs and three (3) penetrated her heart, all of which were potentially fatal. He further noted the surface characteristics of some of the stab wounds indicated that either the victim was after the knife blade penetrated her body or that the knife blade was jiggled after penetrating the victim. Al though Dr. Clack was unable to establish with certainty the exact order of the wounds, he noted the victim could have remained conscious several minutes after the initial fatal stab wound penetrated either her heart or lung. S he also noted a defensive wound on the

hand. The defensive wound and the noted on other stab wounds indicate the

victim struggled with the Defendant during the attack. It should be noted that a pubic hair which could

belong to the Defendant was found in the victim's pubic hair. Further, Dr. Clack observed uries to the victim's vagina and anus, which in his , were inflicted during the attack which ultimately resulted in the victim's death.

(RS0/8812 8813). Any rational juror would have found that the

murder of the victim qualified for both the pecuniary gain

aggravator as well as the HAC aggravator.

18

174

A rational jury would have unanimous found the aggravating

factors if it had been instructed to, and it would have unanimous

found that the aggravating factors were sufficient for the

ition of and that the For

all these reasons, relief must be denied.

Defendant's that Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) mandates relief in this case is without merit. First, any complaint about jury instructions at this point is untimely and procedurally barred from consideration in this successive post-conviction motion. v. State 57 So. 3d 828, 838 (Fla. 2011). In addition, in order to establish constitutional error under Caldwell, a defendant must show that the comments or instructions to the jury "improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law." Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9 (1994). The jury was instructed on its role based upon the law existing at the time of Johnson's trial. It is ludicrous to suggest that the jury should have been instructed in accordance with a constitutional in the law which occurred more than a decade after the trial.

19

175

CONCLUSION

Based on the and Defendant's

successive post-conviction motion is without merit and must be

summari denied.

submitted,

PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA

TIMOTHY A. FREELAND Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No. 0539181 Office of the Attorney General 3507 E. Rd., Suite 200

, Florida 33607-7013 : (813) 287-7910

[email protected] [email protected]

CO-COUNSEL, STATE OF FLORIDA


I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of March, 2017, I

electronical filed the with the Clerk of Court by us

the Florida Courts E-Portal Filing System which will send a notice

of electronic filing to the following: Honorable Andrew D. Owens,

Jr., Lynn North Silvertooth Judicial Center, 2002 Ringling

Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34237, jpeters@jud12. flcourts. org;

Mark S. Gruber and Julie A. Morley, Assistants CCRC-M, Law Office

of the Collateral Counsel-Middle , 12973

North Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida 33637 0907;

[email protected], [email protected]

20

176

[email protected]; and Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State

Office of the State Sarasota Criminal Justice

Building, 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400, Sarasota, Florida

34237-7000, [email protected] [and] [email protected].

CO-COUNSEL, STATE OF FLORIDA

21

ATTACHMENT A

178

v.


OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 1995-CF-2207

ROBERT J.

Defendant.

matter is

In of Hurst v. Florida Hurst v. State," filed January 11, 2017,

Rule of Criminal . The timely filed answer to

31, 2017. The conducted a case mana~:ement contere:nce

on 2017, at which time the Court, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.85l(f)(5)(B), heard

claims. of the

for the reasons set forth below, Court finds

is necessary in this matter. Court has reviewed Defendant's

answer, court

On Defendant's direct appeal of his judgment and capital sentence, the Florida Supreme

Court summarized facts of this case as follows:

On August 17, 1995, Hope Siegel arranged a date with the victim, Paul Edcnson, so Trease could learn where the victim hid his safe. When Siegel arrived at the victim's home they talked for a while, after which Siegel departed and walked to

179

Trease's location, and told him that the victim did not have a safe. followed her back to the victim's house where he surprised the victim and battered him in an effort to the information, Upon the victim's insistence that he did not have a safe in the told Siegel to a gun which Trease put to victim's head as he continued the questioning. The victim ""'"'""'""' uncooperative so Trease fired a nonlethal bullet into his head and then

for a knife with which he cut victim's throat. An expe1i medical 1" 01·,h,,,• that the victim would have died a later.

~ut,sec~uent to their Trease denied any knowledge of the crime, but made a taped statement implicating both. The had no physical evidence tying to so Siegel's testimony was critical at trial. The jury found guilty of burglary, and robbery with a

Trease v. 2000).

sentence.

its Mandate following

(90 days

appeal). See Fla. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(l)(A) ("For the purposes of this rule, a judgment is

... on time permitted to file in the United Court a

writ of certiorari seeking review of Supreme Court Florida decision affirming

after opinion becomes final) .... ").

2

180

Following the affirmance of his judgment and sentence, the postconviction procedural

of this case indicates repetitive vacillating intent on Defendant's part. The Florida

, .. ,,.,}.""'"'..., Court summarized a substantial portion of Defendant's postconviction proceedings as

follows:

fn March 2001, filed a pro se motion to waive postconviction and postconviction pro,cec:d1r1gs. After holding a hearing and conducting

a FarettcHype 2001, the court Trease competent l

v\)LIJl.'.'.11.,l.

ren1state his counsel to

was r<><'l'sl'1,>fi

nos:tcor1V1ct1<)n motion on May 9, 2007.

,1'"''''·,"' Appellate the.reaJ:ter, on May

r\11Y"'t'l/'\<CA of 2d (Fla.

Criminal 1 (i). On June 19, 2008, this motion and temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the

proceedings required rule l(i) and Durocher.

On October 2, 2008, trial court held the Durocher hearing with Trease physically in the courtroom ....

trial court issued an order finding that (1) the consequences, (2) is competent, and (3)

oec:1s1crn to and dismiss all further proceedings is knowing, intelligent, voluntary. Accordingly, the trial judge

to counsel and end appellate review.

1 Meanwhile, on 11/19/01, Governor Jcb Bush for 02/07 /02; however, Governor Bush granted a

a death warrant for Defendant. The execution was scheduled ofExecution on 02/06/02.

3

181

v. State, 41 3d 119, 120-122 (Fla. 20 l 0). Defendant's discharged counsel appealed

the dismissing counsel and ending further appellate review, and Defendant pursued his

postconviction options as follows:

On December 2008, motion to

at

Id.

at l

a petition the

1. v. 131 S. 1479 1 ).

for writ of corpus in district court in

under case no. 8: 1 T~23TBM. By order rendered January 12, 2017, the United

Court the Middle District of Florida stayed Defendant's habeas petition and

case noting that Defendant must file an appropriate motion when

v. State (February 2, 6), is final.

4

182

In his present motion) Defendant requests the Court to vacate his death sentence in this

case on the basis that he is entitled to under Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and

and

argues

(1

Motions under Rule 1 generally must be filed within one year of the date

sentence become final. Fla. R. P. 1 ( d). As previously noted,

is nortet11.e1ess

on January 10, 2001. Defendant argues that

Rule 3.851 (d)(2)(B), which provides an exception

held to apply retroactively

( 1) under the fundamental

James v. State, 615 So. 668 (Fla. 1993);

retroactivity analysis established in Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d

law in decision in

s. 718 16)."

In Mosley, Florida Supreme Court actclressect retroactive application of Hurst v.

and Hurst v. State under two approaches. First, the

2 4 l Fla. L. 41 Fla. L.

S629 (Fla. Dec. 2016), reh 'g SC 2017 WL 510491 S646 Dec. 22, 2016), reh 1g denied, SCl 6- 2017 WL 431741

5

Feb. 8, 2017). Feb. 1,

183

Mosley was to retroactive application under the principle of fundamental fairness

he

was then rej ectcd at every turn. "4 Second,

a Ring claim at his

Florida Supreme Court

v. Florida

In contrast

nature

V.

Gaskin v. State, 42 Fla. L. 12/d. at *2.

V.

on

application based upon a Witt 5 analysis. 6

became final after the United States Supreme

"[a]lthough [his] direct appeal was pre~Ring, he

is entitled to retroactive application

under James.

same as Mosley,

and sentence of

conducted a Witt

case, in

In

now in V. that Hurst not

sentences were the United

bright~line for retroactivity is

V.

sentence Jn 12 and

20 reh 'g SCI 2017 WL 431741 Feb. I, 2017),

Jan. 19, 2017).

6

184

v. 13 similarly denying relief under Hurst v. Florida on the basis that Bogie's ''first-degree

conviction

n!4

13 v. State, SCJ 14 /d. at *!6.

sentence of death were final in 1995, before the :::;ui:1ren1e Cou11 decided

it is

arguments flow from some of the more nuanced matters inherent in

2017 WL 526507

including whether a Ring-like challenge was

Amendment and Eighth Amendment

of using Ring as a bright-line for

to

not case,

l(d).

Feb. 9, 2017).

15 See 2017 WL at * 16 docs not apply to cases that were final was Gaskin, 2017 WL 224772, at *2 ("Because Gaskin's sentence became final in 1993, Gaskin is not entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida."); 20 l 6 WL 7406506, at* 18 have now held in v. that Hurst does not apply to capital whose sentences were final before the United States Court issued its opinion in 16 Hill v. State, 302 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ("[W]hcther we agree with the decision of the Supreme Court, ... we must follow it. quote our erstwhile brother, Judge Mann, ... we receive the interpretation of the law 'from our with some, with some, following all .... "'); see also State v.

332 So.

7

185

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that "Defendant's Successive Rule 3.851 Motion For

Post··Conviction Relief In Light of Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State" is DENIED. Defendant

has the to appeal within thirty (30) days rendition of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Sarasota County, Florida, on

March 7.

cuit Judge

8

186

I certify that on this day of March 2017 copies of the foregoing Order were hand 11 "' 11 u1>,·u and/or electronic mail to:

9

187


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NOS.: 1988 CF 3198 NC/ 1988 CF 3199 NC 1988 CF 3200 NC 1988 CF 3438 NC

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

ORDER RE-ASSIGNING CASE AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The Court having reviewed this case and finding that this case was assigned to the Honorable

Andrew D. Owens, Jr., and further that the Honorable Andrew D, Owens, Jr. retired effective March 21,

2017, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

This case is reassigned to the Honorable Hunter W. Carroll. As required by Fla. R. Crim. P.

3.851(t)(S)(B), a Case Management Conference shall be heard before the Honorable Hunter W. Carroll,

Circuit Judge, on Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in the Manatee County Judicial Center,

Courtroom 6A, 1051 Manatee Ave. West, Bradenton, FL 34206, during which the Court will hear

argument on purely legal claims and determine the need for an evidentiary hearing. Twenty (20) minutes

have been reserved for the Case Management Conference. Counsel may appear telephonically by calling

the conference number listed below and following the narrated instructions:

Toll Free Dial in Number: 888-670-3525

Participant Passcode: 3785472431

It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all future hearings shall be coordinated

according to Judge Carroll's Requirements loc on the 12th Circuit website at

www.judl2.flcourts.org.

DONE AND ORDERED at Sarasota, Fl 1da, .


188


I certify that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished by mail, e-mail, or hand delivery to: Mark Gruber, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected], [email protected]; Julie Morley, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected]; Emanuel Johnson, DC #338043, Union Correctional Institution, 7819 N. W. 228th St., Raiford, Florida 32026-4000; Office of the State Attorney, Attn. Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34237, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, [email protected], [email protected], on this ~ day of April 2017.

By:CP~ Judicial Assis

Filed 04/06/2017 11:03 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the CircuitCourt, Sarasota County, FL

189

IN THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA Plaintiff,

Case Nos. 1988-CF-3198-NC/ 1988-CF-3199-NC 1988-CF-3200-NC 1988-CF-3438-NC

v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's "Successive Motion to

Vacate Judgments of Conviction and Sentence (Hurst v. Florida)," filed in each of

the above-captioned cases on January 6, 2017, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851.

After the Court granted an extension of time, the State timely filed its answer to the

motions on March 10, 2017. The Court conducted a case management conference

on April 10, 2017. The parties did not request an evidentiary hearing, and upon

consideration, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary to

resolve Defendant's claims. The Court has reviewed the motions, the court file,

and applicable law, and is otherwise duly advised in the premises.

Case History for Victim Iris White

On November 4, 1988, Defendant was indicted for the first degree murder of

Iris White in Case No. 1988-CF-3199. The Florida Supreme Court summarized

the facts of the case:

Filed 07/03/201712:32 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL

190

On October 4, 1988, police found the body of 73-year-old Iris White. She was naked from the waist down and had suffered twentyfour stab wounds, one incised wound, and blunt trauma to the back of the head. A variety of fatal wounds penetrated the lungs and heart. The body also showed evidence of defensive wounds and abrasions near the vagina and anus most likely caused by a forceful opening by hand or fingernails.

Police found a screen in the living room had been cut and the lower window raised. The fingerprints of Emanuel Johnson were recovered from the window sill. Police also found two pubic hairs that showed the same microscopic characteristics as Johnson's, though an expert stated that an exact identification was not possible. Johnson had done yard work for White some years earlier.

After a lengthy interrogation on October 12, 1988, Johnson gave a taped confession to police. He stated that he knocked on White's door to talk about lawn maintenance. When she opened the door, he then grabbed her, choked her to unconsciousness, and then stabbed her several times. Johnson said he then left the house, locking the door behind himself, but forgot to take White's wallet. Twenty minutes later, he cut open the window screen, climbed in, took the wallet, and left. Johnson said he later threw the wallet in an area where a road surveyor later found it.

Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1995). A jury found Defendant guilty of

first degree murder and recommended death by a vote of 10-to-2. Id. at 641. The

Court found 3 aggravating factors and 15 mitigating factors. Id. Finding that each

aggravating factor alone outweighed all mitigating factors, the Court sentenced

Defendant to death. Id. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed

Defendant's judgment and sentence. Id. at 648. Defendant's subsequent petition

for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on April 22,

1996. Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159 (1996).

Page 2 of9


191

Defendant filed his initial postconviction motion in March of 1997. Johnson

v. State, 104 So. 3d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 2012). In an amended motion filed

September 15, 2003, Defendant argued that Florida's death sentencing statute was

unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). 104 So. 3d at 1028.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the motions. Id. at 1016-17.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the ruling. Id. at 1032.

Defendant filed a successive postconviction motion on December 9, 2015,

based on newly discovered evidence regarding forensic microscopic hair

comparison analysis used during his trial. Johnson v. State, SC16-959, 2016 WL

7176765 (Fla. Dec. 9, 2016). The Court summarily denied the motion, and the

ruling was affirmed on appeal. Id.

Case History for Victim Jackie McCahon

On November 4, 1988, Defendant was indicted for the first degree murder of

Jackie McCahon in Case No. 1988-CF-3200. The Florida Supreme Court

summarized the facts of the case:

On September 22, 1988, Sarasota police found Jackie McCahon's body on a sidewalk in front of her residence. She had been stabbed nineteen times, and twelve of the wounds were fatal. A broken-off piece of a knife blade was found in her body. Blood spatter evidence suggested that McCahon had been attacked as she opened the door, or while inside a bathroom. Police at first suspected several men, but later turned their attention to a tenant of McCahon's named Emanuel Johnson. When first questioned, Johnson said he had heard police cars arrive and had gone out to see what was happening,

Page 3 of9


192

but that he did not know McCahon was the victim until someone told him so the next day.

After a lengthy police interrogation, however, Johnson confessed. He said he had gone to McCahon's residence to say he needed to use her phone because his wife was about to give birth. McCahon knew that Johnson's wife was pregnant. When McCahon let Johnson in the door, he grabbed her and choked her to semiconsciousness. Then he found a knife, stabbed her several times, cut the phone cord, then took twenty dollars he found. Later, Johnson stated that he then went across the street to his apartment, but saw McCahon stagger out of her residence on to the sidewalk. At this point Johnson said he took a knife from his apartment, went out, and stabbed McCahon repeatedly. Police later found a broken knife handle where Johnson said he had thrown the second knife. It matched the broken blade found in the body.

Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648,652 (Fla. 1995). A jury found Defendant guilty

of first degree murder and armed robbery and recommended death by a vote of 1 O

to-2. Id. The Court found 3 aggravating factors and 15 mitigating factors. Id.

Finding that each aggravating factor outweighed all mitigating factors, the Court

sentenced Defendant to death. Id. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court

affirmed Defendant's judgment and sentence. Id. at 664. Defendant's subsequent

petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on

April 22, 1996. Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159 (1996).

Defendant filed his initial Rule 3.851 postconviction motion in March of

1997. Johnson v. State, 104 So. 3d 1032, 1034 (Fla. 2012). In an amended motion

filed March 4, 2002, Defendant raised a Ring-like challenge to Florida's death

sentencing statute. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the

Page 4 of9


193

motions. Id. at 1039-41. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the ruling. Id. at

1043.

The Present Motions

In the present motions, Defendant requests that the Court vacate his death

sentences because he is entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616

(2016), and its Florida progeny. Motions under Rule 3.851 generally must be filed

within one year of the date the judgment and sentence become final. Fla. R. Crim.

P. 3.851(d). Defendant's death sentence in each of these cases became final when

the U.S. Supreme Court denied his certiorari petitions on April 22, 1996.

Defendant argues that the present motions are nonetheless timely under Rule

3.851(d)(2)(B), which provides an exception where a motion asserts a fundamental

constitutional right not established within the one-year window that has been held

to apply retroactively. Specifically, Defendant argues that the present motions

were timely filed within one year of: (1) issuance of Hurst v. Florida; (2)

enactment of Chapter 2016-13, Laws of Florida; (3) issuance of Perry v. State, 210

So. 3d 630 (Fla. 2016); and (4) issuance of Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla.

2016). The timeliness of Defendant's motions turns on whether the fundamental

constitutional rights espoused in these decisions have been held to apply

retroactively to Defendant.

Page 5 of9

-


194

Defendant argues that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Mosley v.

State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016), requires retroactive application of Hurst v.

Florida to two classes of defendants: (1) those whose sentences became final after

the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584

(2002); and (2) those who specifically raised and preserved a claim of Ring-like

error at trial. Indeed, Mosley addressed retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida

and Hurst v. State under two approaches. First, the court held that Mosley was

entitled to retroactive application under the fundamental fairness analysis

established in James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1993), because he "raised a

Ring claim at his first opportunity and was then rejected at every tum." 209 So. 3d

at 1275. Second, the court separately found that Mosley was entitled to retroactive

application based upon a Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980), analysis. 209

So. 3d at 1283.

Defendant argues that because he raised a Ring-like claim in his original

postconviction motions, he is entitled to retroactive relief pursuant to the

fundamental fairness as contemplated in James. However, the fundamental

fairness analysis in Mosley begins by noting that Mosley's crimes occurred after

Ring and his Ring claims were denied at trial and on direct appeal. Id. at 1274.

Defendant's crimes occurred long before Ring, his death sentences became final

Page 6 of9


195

approximately 6 years before Ring, and he did not raise a Ring-like claim at trial or

on direct appeal.

Moreover, on the same day the Florida Supreme Court decided Mosley, it

also decided Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016), which addressed retroactive

relief under Hurst v. Florida where, as here, the defendant's death sentence became

final before Ring. The court conducted a Witt analysis and concluded that "Hurst

should not be applied retroactively to Asay's case, in which the death sentence

became final before the issuance of Ring." 210 So. 3d at 22. In fact, Mosley

clarified the nature of Asay's holding: "we have now held in Asay v. State, that

Hurst does not apply retroactively to capital defendants whose sentences were final

before the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring." 209 So. 3d at

1274. Subsequent decisions from the Florida Supreme Court have further

solidified this use of Ring as a bright-line cutoff for retroactive relief under Hurst

v. Florida and its Florida progeny. See, e.g .. Gaskin v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly

S16 (Fla. Jan. 19, 2017) ("Because Gaskin's sentence became final in 1993,

Gaskin is not entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida."); Bogle v. State, 42 Fla. L.

Weekly S166 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017) ("Bogle is not, however, entitled to Hurst relief

because Hurst does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before Ring was

decided."); Archer v. Jones, SC16-2111, 2017 WL 1034409 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2017)

("We hereby deny Archer's petition pursuant to our holding in Asay[] that Hurst v.

Page 7 of9


196

Florida and Hurst v. State do not apply retroactively to capital defendants whose

death sentences were final when Ring[] was decided.").

While Defendant's analysis of Florida's post-Hurst retroactivity opinions is

well taken, he does not cite to-and the Court is not aware of-any decision

affording the retroactive relief now sought to a defendant whose death sentence

became final before Ring. To the contrary, the recent decisions cited above

uniformly denied retroactive Hurst relief solely on the basis of pre-Ring finality.

Because the fundamental constitutional rights underlying Defendant's motions

have not been held to apply retroactively to him, the present motions are untimely

under Rule 3 .851 ( d). In light of this determination, the Court need not reach the

matter of whether any Hurst error in these cases was harmless.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's

successive motions for postconviction relief are DENIED. Defendant shall have

thirty (30) days from rendition of this order to file an appeal.

DONE AND ORDERED in Manatee County, Florida, on 6/2S'2017. A/vile.- f'0 t'J0<:., /.... '{/'J."{ / J.<>1-:,. M t>"'<'7, ... ..).... bt. ,ec,.-(.._ lo~ 1-

i.,.h-,., o-,J.,-s f- Ck,-~\ *'~,,.-M. ~ arr~ Circuit Jud

Page 8 of9


197


I hereby certify that on this '2 9. day of June 2017, a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to: Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, [email protected], 3507 E. Frontage Rd., Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607-7013; Mark S. Gruber and Julie A. Morley, Assistant CCRC, [email protected], [email protected], 12973 N. Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, FL 33637-0907; and Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, [email protected], 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34237.

·::ulS~---:- y\'-~'t"~-~

Judicial Assistant

Page 9 of9


198

Filing# 59519393 E-Filed 07/26/2017 10: 15:55 AM


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff, v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant. /

Case No. 88-3198-F Case No. 88-3199-CF-A-Nl

Capital Post-conviction Case (Victim Iris White)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

The Defendant, EMANUEL JOHNSON, by counsel, takes this appeal to the Florida Supreme

Court of the circuit court's Order denying Defendant's Successive Motion to Vacate Judgments of

Conviction and Sentence, rendered June 29, 2017. The nature of the order appealed from is a final

order denying the Defendant's Successive Motion to Vacate Judgments of Conviction and Sentence

(Hurst v. Florida), originally filed on January 9, 2017.


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy, in PDF format, of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has

been transmitted to this Court through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal, which will serve a Notice

ofElectronic Filing to: the Honorable Hunter W. Carroll; Circuit Judge; Judge Lynn N. Silvertooth

Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, at

Office of the State

Attorney, Attn. Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota,

defendant, Emanuel Johnson, DOC #338043, Union Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1000,

Filed 07/26/201710:46 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL

199

Raiford, Florida 32083 by U.S. Mail, prepaid first class postage, on this 26th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Mark S. Gruber

2

MARK GRUBER Assistant CCRC-M Florida Bar No. 0330541 WLIEMORLEY Florida Bar No. 85158 Assistant CCRC-M Capital Collateral Regional Counsel

- Middle Region (813) 558-1600

Attorneys for Defendant

200

Filing# 59519393 E-Filed 07/26/2017 10: 15:55 AM


STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. 88-3198-F

Plaintiff, v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant. /

Case No. 88-3199-CF-A-Nl


DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK

Defendant, EMANUEL JOHNSON, by counsel, directs the Clerk to include all items filed

in this successive postconviction proceeding in the record on appeal, as specified in Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9 .200( a )(1) to include all pleadings, original documents, orders, and transcripts

of proceedings, dated from January 9, 2016 to present. Any exhibits which are capable of being

copied shall be copied and included in the record.






Office of the State




201


/s/ Mark S. Gruber

2




202

Filing# 59519393 E-Filed 07/26/2017 10: 15:55 AM


STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. 88-3198-F and 88-3199-CF-A-Nl (Capital Case - Victim Iris White)

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 88-3200-F and 88-3438-CF-A-Nl

(Capita] Case - Victim Jackie McCahon) EMANUEL JOHNSON,

DESIGNATIONS TO THE COURT REPORTER

Defendant, EMANUEL JOHNSON, by counsel, files this designation to the Official

Court Reporter and directs:

Richard Scire Official Court Reporters for the 12th Judicial Circuit

2002 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, FL 34237

(941) 861-7850

to transcribe the following hearing held in the above styled cause: Case Management Conference,

April 10, 2017 at 3:00 p.m., conducted before the Honorable Hunter W. Carroll, Circuit Judge, and

to furnish same along with electronic transcripts in Microsoft Word on CD-rom, to the Clerk of

Court for inclusion in the record on appeal.

Original only, no copies requested.







203

Office of the State


Court Reporter Richard Scire, Official Court Reporters for the Ith Judicial Circuit, 2002 Ringling

Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34237, and to the defendant, Emanuel Johnson, DOC #338043, Union

Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1000, Raiford, Florida 32083 by U.S. Mail, prepaid first class

postage, on this 26th day of July, 2017.

2

/s/ Mark S. Gruber MARK GRUBER Assistant CCRC-M Florida Bar No. 0330541 WLIEMORLEY Florida Bar No. 85158 Assistant CCRC-M Capital Collateral Regional Counsel



204

Filing# 59712855 E-Filed 07/31/2017 11 :54:52 AM

JOHN A. TOMASINO CLERK

MARK CLAYTON CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

KRISTINA SAMUELS STAFF ATTORNEY

i,uprtmt (ourt of jfloriba Office of the Clerk

500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE

July 31, 2017

PHONE NUMBER: (850) 488-0125 www.floridasupremecourt.org

RE: EMANUEL JOHNSON vs. STA TE OF FLORIDA

CASE NUMBER: SC 17-1401 Lower Tribunal Case Number(s): 581988CF003198XXXANC; 581988CF003199XXXANC Lower Tribunal Filing Date: 7/26/2017

The Florida Supreme Court has received the following documents reflecting a filing date of?/28/2017.

Notice of Appeal

The Florida Supreme Court's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence filed in this cause.

jat cc: JULIE A. MORLEY MARK S. GRUBER TIMOIBY ARTHUR FREELAND HON. KAREN E. RUSHING, CLERK KAREN FRAIVILLIG


205

Filing# 60649139 E-Filed 08/21/2017 09:45:38 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORI

Plaintiff,

vs

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

Case Numbers: 1988-CF-3198 1988-CF-3199 1988-CF-3200 1988-CF-3438

Transcript of stenographically-reported

held before the Honorable Hunter Carroll,

Circuit Judge, at the Manatee County Judicial Center, on

April 10, 2017.

TIM Office of the

On behalf of the

via Collateral Counsel

On behalf of the Defendant

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Twelfth Judicial Circuit

1


206

1

2

3

4

5

P R O C E E D I N G S

(THE JUDGE PLACED THE PHONE CALL.)

MR. GRUBER: Hello?

THE COURT: Hello, this is Carroll.

MR. GRUBER: Good afternoon, your Honor, this is

6 Mark Gruber of CCRC.

7

8

9

10 phone?

THE COURT: How are you , Mr. Gruber?

MR. GRUBER: Very fine, thank you.

THE COURT: Do we have anyone from the State on the

2

11 MR. FREELAND: Yes, your Honor, this is Tim Freeland

12 with the Office of the Attorney General.

13 THE COURT: Fantastic. Now, are we anyone

14 else, or are we to proceed?

MR. FREELAND: I believe we're to 15

16

17 THE COURT: Were we waiting on Ms. Fraivillig or

18 anyone from the State 's Office? Did either -- we'll

19 start with you, Mr. Freeland, did you know whether or not

20 anyone from the State Attorney's Office would be joining us or

21 not?

22 MR. FREELAND: Hones I don't, Judge. I know that

23 we've had communication with them, and we told them that we

2 4 would be more than

25 that's what we're

to cover for them. As far as I know

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

Twelfth Judicial Circuit

207

1 THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Gruber, have you heard

2 anything from the State Attorney's Office?

3

4

5

MR. GRUBER: I have not.

THE COURT: Okay, well, why don't we go ahead and

Obvious Mr. Johnson is not with us. do have

6 since I've received this I guess last week, or

7 maybe the before, I've started to review both sets of

8 cases.

9 And looks like our case numbers are 1988-CF-3198,

10 1988-CF-3199, 1988-CF-3200, 1988-CF-3438. All of those are

11 out of Sarasota county. And I do have a court reporter

12 present.

3

13 So I have -- like I said, I've been to up

14 to on the files. I did note that we have Mr. Johnson's

15 Hurst motion that's been fi and I see the State's

16 response. And so, ~~~-rn~u, was there any view as to whether

17 you were seeking an evidentiary hearing, or can we just go on

18 the papers on this one?

19 MR. GRUBER: This is Mark Gruber. We're not seeking

20 an evidentiary hearing.

21 MR. FREELAND: And this is Tim Freeland, your Honor.

22 As I understand it, we're not an evidentiary

23 so I think we can proceed to argument.

24 THE COURT: Yeah, I didn't ant

25 would, but just wanted to ask. And so

either of you

have reviewed the



208

1 papers that have been submitted, and I have them up on my

computer electronically right now, so

you wish to lead us off.

and Mr. Gruber, if

4

2

3

4

5

MR. GRUBER: Thank you, your Honor. I'll to cut

to the chase here. To a bit of context,

6 we actually to work on it in December. But in the

7 of of this year, after Mos v. State was

8 decided on December 22nd, I believe in virtually all of these

9 capital post-conviction cases throughout the state that either

10 the CCRC attorneys or registry capital post-conviction

11 attorneys have been filing either stand-alone Hurst motions

12 like we have here, or if there have been other proceedings

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ongoing, most of us, virtual all of us have been fil

either supplemental brie or whatever might be appropriate

to the Hurst issue to the Court's attention.

Given that there have been cases out

of the Florida Supreme Court regarding these cases essentially

every week, that

conducting rather a

do an release. And we are now

of these case management

conferences, and orders have been coming in from the Circuit

Courts as well. So with that background in mind, these are

two cases, both rest on non-unanimous advisory

23 verdicts, but both became final in 1995, well before v.

24 Arizona was decided in 2002. And I'm s by

25 every that into our motions here, and 'm not



209

1 conceding or abandoning anything at all, you know, I would be

2 disingenuous if I didn't concede that so far every pre-Ring

3 case that has been decided, whether at the Florida Supreme

4 Court level or at the Circuit Court level, has denied relief

5 on the basis of

5

6 So I said that because the recommendations here were

7 less than unanimous. It's also my view that if Hurst were to

8 apply retroactively to these cases that the State would be

9 unable to prove harmless error, and therefore there would be a

10 new penalty phase, but that's not the case here.

11

12

13

14

15

16

And that's sort of it in a nutshell for me. I can

go in some further detail. There are additional arguments

that we raised in our motions Amendment

theories of relief, and a -- what I'll call a forward-looking

to the way the Court should conduct an is, if

it reaches the harmless error question. But if the Court

17 rules consistently with every ruling that I've seen come out

18 so far, those issues would be moot.

19 I will say, one of my arguments here, and the State

20 has responded to it, is that Mosley v. State in my view

21 presented two paths to retroactive application. One of those

22 was the traditional Witt is, and it's based on that

23

24

is the Florida Supreme Court came down on the side of a

al retroactive ication,

25 became final before or after



on whether the case

210

1

2

6

The other path to retroactive application identified

in Mosley is based on James v. State, and is based on

3 principles of fundamental fairness. That path as it's

4 articulated in Mos

5 cases; it does not on the 2002 cut-off. And that is

6 the one that I am

7 in our motion. The State has disputed it of course, and

8 Okay, I think I said it in a nutshell what our

9 position is now.

10 THE COURT: Okay, I appreciate that.

11 Mr. Freeland, anything other than what's in your

12 papers?

13 MR. FREELAND: No, your Honor. I think Mr. Gruber

14 has summarized the state of the law. This case was

15 final before came out, and every case that I've seen

16 've been relief. And think that's the correct

17 result in this case as well.

18 THE COURT: So else either side would like

19 to say on the Hurst motion?

20 MR. GRUBER: No, your Honor.

21 MR. FREELAND: No, your Honor, not from the State

22 either.

23 THE COURT: Now, in my review of the file, correct

24 me if I'm wrong, but

25 Circuit Court level;

there are no

is that correct?



3.851s at the

211

7

1 MR. GRUBER: Mark Gruber again. That's true. We

2 did have a fairly recent post-conviction motion predicated on

3 an FBI report. That one has been I believe it's now

4 on

Am about that? 5

6 MR. FREELAND: it is on

7 this is Tim your Honor -- I actual

Actually -

believe the

8 Florida Supreme Court has already ruled on that, but that's

9 as far as the Circuit Court is concerned, there's no pending

10 3.851s that I'm aware of.

THE COURT: Okay. 11

12 MR. GRUBER: Well, there is one more thing, since

13 this came up in another case. These cases are in federal

14 court on federal habeas proceedings. Those have been

15

16

the resolution of the Hurst issue.

THE COURT: And the cert ition is

17 United States Supreme Court?

at the

18

19

MR. GRUBER: I don't know. I don't think so.

MR. FREELAND: I would agree. I'm not aware that

20 there is this is Tim Freeland, your Honor I'm not aware

21 that there is a cert petition pending in the U.S. Supreme

22 Court. I think that the case has been through the Florida

23

24

25

Court, and there is a pending habeas

federal court, which is s

THE COURT: But you said it was s



ition in

212

8

1 resolution of something, is it this motion by me? Or is it

2

3

4

5

something that's pending out of the U.S. Supreme Court?

MR. GRUBER: No, it's pending this motion.

THE COURT: Okay. And I'm loo through the file

this it does appear that on December 9th, 2016,

6 the Florida Court issued a order the Circuit

7 Court's denial of post-conviction relief with to the

8 2014 letter from the Department of Justice that attached the

9 2013 FBI report.

MR. GRUBER: Okay. 10

11 THE COURT: I've only pulled that in one of the

12 cases, but I'd have to go check the other cases.

13 Was there else that you need from me other

14 than an order out in this particular set of cases?

15 MR. GRUBER: I believe that's it.

16 THE COURT: Mr. from you?

17 MR. FREELAND: No, your Honor, just a ruling on

18 these -- I think that's all that's , that's all that's

19 before the Court.

20 THE COURT: Well, I'll go ahead and get an order out

21 when we get it finished, and look forward to working with you

22

23

24

25

MR. GRUBER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. FREELAND: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Have a good now.



213

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(THE PHONE CALLS WERE TERMINATED.)

THE COURT: We'll be in recess.

(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)

E R T I F I N

8 I, SARAH MARTIN, RMR, CRR, Official Court Reporter in

9 and for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida,

10 do hereby certi that I reported, by shorthand machine, the

11 proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled

12 cause, and that on April 11, 2017, the foregoing Pages 1-9

13 were

14 taken at

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and

the time and

transcribed from my shorthand notes

herein set forth.



9

214

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.~8-CF-003199-NC 1988-CF-003198-N C

EMANUEL JOHNSON, Defendant.

ORDER SETTING HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing in the above-styled cause has been scheduled \

at the Sarasota County Judicial Center, 2002 Ringling Blvd., Courtroom 6A, Sarasota, Florida

as follows:

DATE:

TIME: )

JUDGE:

SUBJECT:

JULY 6, 2016

10:00A.M.

ANDREW D. OWENS, JR.

STATUS CONFERENCE

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.

DATED this Jfi!:_ day of June, 2 16.

I certify _that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished by mail, e-mail, or hand delivery to: Mark Gruber, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected], [email protected]; Julie Morley, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected]; Emanuel Johnson, DC #338043, Union Correctional Institution, 7819 N.W. 228th St., Raiford, Florida 32026-4000; Office of the State Attorney, Attn. Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34237, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, [email protected], [email protected], on this JO ~day of June, 2016.

If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Sarasota County Jury Office, P.O. :3ox 3079, Bradenton, Florida 34230, (941)861-7425, at least seven (7) days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than seven (7) days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.


215

~ IN THE COUNTY/CIR£!!1, COURT ;N AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA I ~COURT APPEARANCE RECORD I D JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

STATE OF FLORIDA CASE#: 1988 CF 003199 NC OBTS #:

vs JOHNSON.EMANUEL

-OWENS, ANDREW D I h,,.1_ TYPE Oi~i~bl!io am

~--.u, JUDGE: r ,.._. • DATE:

APPEARANCE: 0 PRESENT 0PRESENTWITHATIORNEyV §fNOTPRESEN J - ,.,_ - ... 0FAILEDTOAPPEAR

COURT ORDERED: 0 BW O CAPIAS O BOND SET l__ Ll 1'1v MOD D BOND FORFEITED O SUMMONS O D-6

COURT APPOINTED: 0 P.D. 0 SPECIAL P.D. 0 INTERPRETER O DEFENDANT WAIVED RIGHT TO COUNSEL O JURY SWORN

CHARGES OF: I BOND TYPE PLEA ADJUDICATION CT SQ G NG NOLO AB G NG W/H N.P. D 1 , IJ.t:.U411 "l J mLruL-"" 1 ·-···--· "" D~ DD D .:

- -D - -o_ DD D - - - [ ]

--- r- ('I. x"'J o_ o= DD D - - -D . • j -\ . l ..,.. -~ - . ...

-- 6 v_ D _n n D DOD D - ... ' SENTENCE STATE ATIORNEY: v,..... ""~A .. . -· u . .;' DEFENSE ATIORNEY: r_,,_ IT .# yui-....- Vtl... ~

CT SQ FINE C.J. DOC YEARS MONTHS DAYS C.T.S. SUSP.JAIL D CONC'/JJ' I DcoNSECTO DcoT~Mw/ 1 1 L__J LJ LJ L_J L__J L_J L_J L__J [ j [ j

L__J LJ LJ L_J L__J L_J L_J L__J I [ j [ j L__J LJ LJ L_J L__J L_J L_J L__J I [ j [ l r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 I r 1 r l

D COURT COSTS AS SHOWN ON cosT SHEET D PAYMENT PLAN D JUDGMENT DDuE OVER PROBATION D w1ED D CONSOLIDATE WITH D OFFENDER WORK PROGRAM

PROBATION/ COMMUNITY CONTROL \..-J;; t.....l -....-JU ~ .. ,,

. .r - . CT SQ co DOC YEARS MONTHS DAYS CONCURRENT/W CONSECUTIVE TO ~ESTITUTION 1 1 LJ LJ LJ L___l L_J -

D D LJ LJ LJ L___l L_J = D D = LJ LJ LJ L___l L_J = D D LJ LJ LJ L___l L_J D D -

0 EARLY TERMINATION [ ] NO EARLY TERMINATION [ REVOKE ] TERMINATE O ALL ORIGINAL CONDITIONS REMAIN

COURT COMMENTS: y~f-;. ~- n .. - 1l '1"":"" l ~ ~ - - - . (' ~

tJ._-H-- .... V J-' *

(}

~ ;

CASE PLACED ON: D NON-FILED STATUS I MOTION(S) MHEARD O CANCELLED O UNDER ADVISEMENT

SPECIAL CONDITIONS: BEGIN TERMS W/N £, COMPLETE TERMS W/N

0 AITEND & COMPLETE DUI SCHOOL O ADVANCED DUI SCHOOL O DNA TESTING O RANDOM URINALYSIS O NO CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL 0 AITEND & COMPLETE VICTIM IMPACT PANEL 0 NO CONTACT O NO HARMFUL CONTACT- WITH VICTIM 0 B.P.O. LICENSE-MAY APPLY O DRIVER'S LICENSE REC. BY CLERK 0 FINGERPRINTS TAKEN IN COURT AT SENTENCE 0 IMPOUND VEHICLE O 10 0 30 0 90 DAYS D AITEND & COMPLETE TRAFFIC SCHOOL D LONG D SHORT D PUBLIC SERVICE HOURS 0 DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSP / REV 0 IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE D DEFER TOD PTI D TPTI D CBIP D DVIP 0 LIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 0 NO RETURN TO PROPERTY D DRUG D ALCOHOL D MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION 0 SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE TREATMENT AS ORDERED ON FIRST AITEMPT

DONE AND ORDERED IN OPEN COURT SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

THIS DAY OF -20 JUDGE

NEXT COURT APPEARANCE LJ SARASOTA LJ VENICE LJ STATE'S CONTINUANCE LJ DEFENSE CONTINUANCE LJ COURT CONTINUANCE

0ARRG AT __ /M 0PTC AT __ /M De.LP. AT __ /M

DvoP AT __ /M DcM Dos AT __ /M D PLEA ON AT /M D HEARING/ D.U.I. AT __ /M 0NJT0JT AT __ /M DH.C.C. AT /M

........ ,., .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - ~

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREG~ HAS BEEN D ~DELIVERE / . ILED TO THE DEFENDANT THIS DAY OF __J , 20 . CLERK OF TH IT RAS AC UNTY, FLORIDA BY: _ _,....... _ _,, __ __. ____________ _

DEPUTY CLERK H:FORMS/COURT APPEARANCE RECORD.DOC 05/15


216


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

CASE NOS.: 1988 CF 3198 NC/ 1988 CF 3199 NC

SUP. CT. Case No.: SC16-959

ORDERONSTATUSCONFERENCERE:STATUSOFRECORD

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court of Florida dated June

3, 2016. On July 6, 2016, at the Sarasota County Judicial Center, the Court held a status conference

regarding the status of the record on appeal. The Defendant was not present, but was represented by

Capital Collateral Regional Counsel. The State was represented by an Assistant Attorney General, and a

representative of the local State Attorney's Office. Also present were representatives from the Twelfth

Circuit Court Reporter's Office and the Sarasota County Clerk's Office.

At the status conference, a designated representative from the Court Reporter's Office confirmed

that the necessary transcript(s) have been completed and that the hard copy and disk of the record has

been filed with the Sarasota County Clerk. Additionally, a representative of the Sarasota County Clerk's

Office indicated that the record on appeal, as designated by the Defendant in his Directions to the Clerk

filed April 26, 2016, will be transmitted to the Supreme Court no later than tomorrow, July 7, 2016.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida on this b"l~y of

July 2016.


217

. "


I certify that a copy of the foregoing order was :furnished by mail, e-mail, or hand delivery to: John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court, Florida Supreme Court, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; Mark Gruber, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected], su1:[email protected]; Julie Morley, Assistant CCRC-Middle, [email protected]; Emanuel Johnson, DC #338043, Union Correctional Institution, 7819 N.W. 228th St., Raiford, Florida 32026-4000; Office of the State Attorney, Attn. Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34237, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attome~eneral, [email protected], [email protected], on this _,._' -_ day of July 2016.

By:QQ~ Judicialssistant


218

Filing# 51649558 E-Filed 01/26/2017 08:32:38 AM


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 88-3199 Death Penalty Case

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The State of Florida, by and through the unders

Assistant General, moves this Honorable Court for an

extension of time within which to file its response to Johnson's

Successive Motion to Vacate of Conviction and Sentence

(Hurst v. Florida), filed on 6, 2017, in the above-

cause, and as therefore would state:

1. The undersigned counsel requires additional time to

file a response to the Defendant's Successive Motion to Vacate

of Conviction and Sentence (Hurst v. Florida) pending

in this Court. In addition to his standard work, unders

counsel has received numerous successive motions

which a response from the State.

2. In l of the burden on the State based

upon recent in the law, the State that

this Honorable Court an additional five (45) to


219

file its response to the pending motion such that the new due

date will be March 13, 2017.

3. The instant motion is made in good faith and not for

purposes of

4. Defendant's counsel, Mark S. Gruber, has been

contacted and has no objection to the instant request.

WHEREFORE, the State that this Honorable Court

enter an order setting the new due date for its response to

Defendant's Successive Motion to Vacate of Conviction

and Sentence (Hurst v. Florida) to March 13, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL

TIMOTHY A. FREELAND Assistant General Florida Bar No. 0539181 Office of the Attorney General 3507 E. Frontage Road, Suite 200

, Florida 33607-7013 ""' "" n " : ( 8 1 3 ) 2 8 7 - 7 9 1 0

Facsimile: (813) 281 5501 [email protected] E-Service:

CO-COUNSEL FOR STATE OF FLORIDA


I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of 2017, I

electronical filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by

2

220

using the Florida Courts E-Portal Filing System which will send

a notice of electronic filing to the following: James Driscoll,

Jr., David Dixon Hendry, Mark S. Gruber and Julie A. Morley,

Assistant CCRC, Law Office of the Collateral

Counsel - Middle 12973 North Telecom

Terrace, Florida 33637-0907, [email protected],

[email protected], and [email protected]; Karen

Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the State

Sarasota Criminal Justice Building, 2071

Boulevard, Suite 400, Sarasota, Florida 34237 7000,

[email protected] and [email protected]; and The Honorable

Andrew D. Owens, Lynn North Silvertooth Judicial Center, 2002

Sarasota, Florida 34237.

[email protected].

CO-COUNSEL FOR STATE OF FLORIDA

3

221


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

CASE NOS. 1988 CF 3198 NC / 1988 CF 3199 NC v

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSIVE POSTCONVICTION MOTION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State's "Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time," filed January 26, 2017. The State requests additional time to file its response to

Defendant's successive Rule 3.851 postconviction motion, filed January 6, 2017, because recent

developments in the law have resulted in a large influx of successive capital postconviction

motions requiring a prompt response. Upon consideration of the motion, and noting that

Defendant has no objection to the request, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the State's "Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time" is GRANTED. The State shall file its written response to Defendant's successive

postconviction motion on or before March 13, 2017.

DONE AND ORDE~D in Chambers in Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida on this ~'/IA

day of January 2017.

I


222

..


I hereby certify that on this ~ay of January 2017, a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to: Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, [email protected], 3507 E. Frontage Rd., Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607-7013; Mark S. Gruber and Julie A. Morley, Assistant CCRC, [email protected], [email protected], 12973 N. Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, FL 33637-0907; and Karen Fraivillig, Assistant State Attorney, [email protected], 2071 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota,

FL 34237. ~ ca, fr By: A ~ ~


223

Filing# 59520321 E-Filed 07/26/2017 10:24:52 AM


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff, v.

EMANUEL JOHNSON,

Defendant. /

Case No. 88-3198-F Case No. 88-3199-CF-A-Nl


NOTICE OF APPEAL

The Defendant, EMANUEL JOHNSON, by counsel, takes this appeal to the Florida Supreme

Court of the circuit court's Order denying Defendant's Successive Motion to Vacate Judgments of

Conviction and Sentence, rendered June 29, 2017. The nature of the order appealed from is a final

order denying the Defendant's Successive Motion to Vacate Judgments of Conviction and Sentence

(Hurst v. Florida), originally filed on January 9, 2017.






Office of the State




224


/s/ Mark S. Gruber

2




STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF SARASOTA

CERTIFICATE OF CLERK

I, KAREN E. RUSHING, Clerk of the Circuit for the County of Sarasota, State of Florida, do hereby

certify that the foregoing appeal record in the Case of\

EMANUEL JOHNSON

Appellant(s)

CASE NO: 1988 CF 003198 NC

1988 CF 003199 NC

APPEAL NO: SC17-1401

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellee(s)

contains a true and correct recital and copy of all such documents and proceedings requested in

said cause as appears from the records and files of my office.

WITNESS MY HAND and official seal this 30th day of August, 2017

KAREN E. RUSHING

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

BY:

Georgia LaVoy, Deputy Clerk

2000 Main Street

P.O. Box 3079

Sarasota, FL 34230

Tel: 941-861-7662

E-mail: [email protected]

CLERKS NOTES

record on appeal - fl courts · 11/04/1988 court appearance record prepared ... subpoena for...

Documents