8-4 statute goes to the Sixth DCA
The State has filed a petition asking the Sixth District Court of Appeal to require the Tenth Circuit to apply the new capital sentencing statute in Bryan Riley's case.
As TFDP covered a few weeks ago, a Tenth Circuit judge ruled in two Polk County cases—the cases of Angel Lobato and Bryan Riley—that applying Florida’s new capital sentencing statute in each case would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of both the U.S. and Florida Constitution. Both Lobato and Riley are awaiting trial on crimes that occurred after Hurst1 but before the new statute went into effect.
Again, when am I going to stop calling it the “new” capital sentencing statute?
Yesterday, in Riley, the State filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus/or Writ of Certiorari/or Writ of Prohibition in the Sixth District Court of Appeal asking the Court to “direct[] the [trial court] to implement the current statutory death penalty sentencing procedures” in Riley’s case.
NOTE: The Sixth DCA is Florida’s newest court. It was established January 1, 2023.
In essence, the State argues that the trial court was incorrect on the law, and the State will suffer irreparable harm if the trial goes forward based on the trial court’s ruling.
The State has not yet filed a similar petition in Lobato’s case. However, it is likely the State will do so.
If you’ve been following along, the litigation surrounding the applicability of the new capital sentencing statute has been scattered. This is the second time the issue has reached a district court of appeal. The first time was when the State successfully sought a petition under similar circumstances in the Fifth District Court of Appeal in the cases of codefendants Jerone Hunter and Troy Victorino. The Fifth DCA’s decision is covered here. After the Fifth DCA granted the petition, the trial court declared a mistrial.
In addition, there are currently three cases pending at the Florida Supreme Court that present issues related to the applicability of the new statute to cases in which the defendant was awaiting a Hurst resentencing proceeding when the new statute went into effect. The latest on that litigation is here.2
For a full explanation of Hurst, see the TFDP five-part series, available here.
There were some additional filings in one of the cases pending at the Florida Supreme Court this week. I’m waiting to see how it pans out a bit more before writing another post.
Without researching it, it seems this question belongs at the Florida Supreme Court, not the 6th DCA. Generally any interlocutory matter in a case where the death penalty is being sought goes to the Supreme Court not the DCA.