Florida Supreme Court affirms denial of Wayne Doty's request for postconviction relief
In today’s regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in Doty v. State, affirming the circuit court's denial of Doty's motion for postconviction relief.
In today’s regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in Doty v. State.
Wayne Doty was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 2011. The original jury recommended death by a vote of 10-2. At a second penalty phase in 2018, the jury unanimously recommended death. Doty’s sentence became final in November 2021.
In this case, Doty appealed (1) the circuit court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, (2) the postconviction court’s denial of his request for a PET scan and MRI, and (3) the postconviction court’s order denying his request to interview a venire member. In his motion for postconviction relief, Doty raised 8 claims.
Three claims related to relative culpability, including one alleging that violations of Brady and Giglio involving the testimony of Senior Inspector Kevin Snow and Dr. Hamilton during the second penalty phase “changed the facts of the case to such a degree that the most culpable defendant was improperly changed” from Wells to Doty. Two claims related to Doty’s assertion that under Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), he should not have been allowed to represent himself. Another claim alleged that the judge from the second penalty phase impermissibly questioned potential jurors outside Doty’s presence. Doty also raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—both “initial trial counsel” back in 2011, as well as standby counsel during the second penalty phase. Finally, Doty alleged cumulative error.
Slip op. at 6-7 (footnotes omitted).
The Court unanimously affirmed the postconviction court’s ruling, denying relief on all claims. Justice Labarga concurred in result to reiterate his disagreement with the Court’s abandoning its precedent on relative culpability.
The full decision can be accessed on the Court’s website here.