Florida Supreme Court affirms John Mosley's sentence of death
In its regular release of opinions this morning, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision affirming John Mosley's sentence of death on direct appeal.
In its regular release of opinions this morning, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision affirming John F. Mosley’s sentence of death on direct appeal after resentencing.
Background
In 2005, a Duval County jury convicted John Mosley of killing his son and son’s mother in 2004. He was originally sentenced to death for murdering his son’s mother following the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation for death.
On direct appeal in 2009, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Mosley’s sentence of death. His sentence became final in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari.
In 2016, following Hurst,1 Mosley’s case was the lead for the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that Hurst applied retroactively to sentences of death that became final after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Ring v. Arizona. (More on that here.) Accordingly, Mosley was granted a new penalty phase.
In December 2019, after the new penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended that Mosley be resentenced to death. Mosley was resentenced to death. Extensive litigation followed this second penalty phase.
On September 15, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court vacated Mosley’s 2020 sentence of death and remanded solely for a new Spencer hearing and a new sentencing hearing.2 The Court’s reasoning was based on the trial court’s “fail[ure] to address Mosley’s unequivocal motion to represent himself at his Spencer hearing.” (Footnote omitted.) The Court denied relief on all other claims.
The trial court held a new Spencer hearing on May 31, 2023. On July 7, 2023, Mosley was resentenced to death. (More on that here.)
Today, the Florida Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam decision affirming Mosley’s sentence of death, concluding that “[t]he two issues” Mosley raised on direct appeal were “not property before th[e] Court.”
Mosley’s first claim was that the jury in his second penalty phase “ignored the judge’s instructions regarding mitigation,” which “amount[ed] to . . . ‘reverse’ jury nullification.” The Court determined this case was abandoned because Mosley did not raise it in his initial appeal following the second penalty phase.
Second, Mosley argued “that the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim of newly discovered evidence.” Again, the Court denied the claim because it “exceeds the scope of th[e] Court’s remand” for a new Spencer hearing.
The full decision can be accessed on the Court’s website here.