Florida's 5th death warrant of 2025
Last night, Gov. DeSantis signed the fifth death warrant this year scheduling the execution of Glen Rogers for May 15. Here's the background of Rogers' case.
Last night, Gov. DeSantis signed a death warrant scheduling the execution of Glen Rogers for May 15 at 6:00 p.m. It is the fifth this year.
Florida Supreme Court Scheduling Order
The Florida Supreme Court has entered a Scheduling Order for warrant-related litigation that sets forth the following schedule:
April 25 at 3:00 p.m.: circuit court proceedings completed
April 28 at 9:00 a.m.: notice of appeal and petition due
April 30 at 3:00 p.m.: initial brief due
May 2 at 3:00 p.m.: answer brief
May 5 at 11:00 a.m.: reply brief
Both the warrant and the Order can be found on the Court’s docket here.
Background of Rogers’ Case
In 1997, a Hillsborough County jury convicted Glen Rogers “of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and grand theft of a motor vehicle and sentenced to death for the [1995] brutal stabbing of Tina Marie Cribbs in a Tampa motel room.”1
Trial & Direct Appeal
After a penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended death.2 The trial court sentenced Rogers to death, finding two aggravating factors: “(1) that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain; and (2) that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel (“HAC”).”
The Court found one statutory mitigator: “that Rogers' capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired (some weight).” The court also found several nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and assigned the noted weight:
(1) Rogers had a childhood deprived of love, affection or moral guidance and lacked a moral upbringing of good family values (slight weight); (2) Rogers' father was an alcoholic who physically abused Rogers' mother in the presence of Rogers and his siblings (slight weight); (3) Rogers was introduced to controlled substances at a young age and encouraged by his older brother to participate in burglaries (slight weight); (4) Rogers has been lawfully and gainfully employed at various times in his adult life (slight weight); (5) Rogers was solely responsible for the care of his two children at one time in his adult life (slight weight); and (6) Rogers had been drinking alcohol for a few hours on the day he came into contact with the victim (little weight).
On direct appeal in 2001, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Rogers’ conviction and death sentence.
Initial Postconviction
In his initial postconviction motion, Rogers raised seven claims:
(1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and develop an alternative suspect; (2) newly discovered evidence regarding alleged improprieties at the lab that performed the DNA analysis; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument of the guilt phase; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument of the penalty phase; (5) unconstitutionality of Florida's death sentencing statute; (6) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to pursue a claim that Florida's death sentencing statute is facially vague and overbroad, and is premised on fundamental error; and (7) cumulative error for the “procedural and substantive errors” and appellate counsel's failure to litigate these errors on appeal.3
After an evidentiary hearing on two of Rogers’ claims, the court denied Rogers’ motion. Rogers appealed, raising five issues:
(1) whether the circuit court erred in denying Rogers' claim that counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase for failing to develop an alternative suspect; (2) whether the circuit court erred in concluding that although the impropriety of the FBI lab was newly discovered evidence, the outcome of a new trial would not have been different; (3) whether the circuit court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on Rogers' claim that counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument; (4) whether the circuit court erred in denying Rogers' claim that counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument; and (5) whether, cumulatively, the combination of “procedural and substantive errors,” which appellate counsel failed to effectively litigate on appeal, deprived Rogers of a fundamentally fair trial.4
He also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising four issues:
(1) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the Florida death sentencing statute as applied violates the United States Constitution under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); (2) whether section 921.141(5), Florida Statutes (2005), is facially vague and overbroad in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, whether such unconstitutionality is reversible error because the jury did not receive adequate guidance in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, whether Rogers' death sentence is premised on fundamental error which must be corrected, and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate these issues; (3) whether, cumulatively, the combination of procedural and substantive errors deprived Rogers of a fundamentally fair trial and whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate these issues on appeal; and (4) whether Rogers' Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment will be violated as he may be incompetent at the time of execution.5
On January 18, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court denied Rogers’ claims.
Federal Habeas
In August 2007, Rogers filed a federal habeas petition raising several claims. On February 19, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Rogers’ petition and denied a certificate of appealability.
First Successive Postconviction Motion
Rogers filed a successive motion for postconviction relief, which the circuit court summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Rogers argued he was "entitled to relief based upon: (1) evidence pertaining to a 1999 PET scan; and (2) evidence pertaining to alleged judicial bias at the original trial.”6 On July 13, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court denied Rogers’ claims on appeal.
Second Successive Postconviction Motion
After Hurst, Rogers filed a second successive postconviction motion seeking relief. In 2018, the Court denied Rogers’ request for Hurst relief because his sentence was final before Ring v. Arizona (2002).7
Third Successive Postconviction Motion
In 2020, Rogers filed a third second successive postconviction motion seeking relief based on newly discovered evidence “consisting of numerous instances of childhood sexual abuse he allegedly experienced over the course of several years.”8 “The circuit court summarily denied the motion, ruling that the alleged childhood sexual abuse did not constitute newly discovered evidence . . . .”9
On October 28, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial.
According to People, Rogers was also convicted of murder and sentenced to death in California but remained incarcerated in Florida.
News Articles
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
Rogers v. State, 783 So. 2d 980, 985 (Fla. 2001).
Id. at 987.
Rogers v. State, 957 So. 2d 538, n.4 (Fla. 2007).
Id. at n.6.
Id. at n.7.
Rogers v. State, 97 So. 3d 824, *1 (Fla. 2012).
Rogers v. State, 235 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 2018). For a full explanation of Hurst, see the five-part TFDP series available here.
Rogers v. State, 327 So. 3d 784, 786 (Fla. 2021).
Id. at 786-87.
It’s striking how much of Rogers’ postconviction litigation revolves around ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence, yet none of it gained enough traction to reopen the case meaningfully. The denial of relief even on childhood abuse claims—framed as not “newly discovered”—feels especially rigid given how late some trauma disclosures can come. Also interesting: how frequently the courts acknowledge mitigating factors like abuse, substance exposure, or mental health issues, but assign them "slight" or "little" weight, as if they barely matter once aggravators are on the table.
The pace Florida is moving at this year with these warrants is also hard to ignore. Five in just a few months seems unprecedented in the current era to this non-lawyer. Curious to see if this trend continues, but I'm concerned that it might.
Again, thank you for continuing to provide such clear, thorough reporting on these cases, especially at a time when it feels like Florida is accelerating the pace of executions. The level of detail you bring—tracking the legal history, appellate issues, and even the personal background—is so important for understanding the full picture. No matter where people stand on the death penalty, your writing helps remind us that these cases are never simple, and there’s so much happening beneath the headlines. Thinking of everyone impacted as this date approaches.
Glen Rogers was sentenced to death in Los Angeles County in 1999 (after his Florida trial) for a murder committed five weeks before the Tampa murder. The Florida murder was the sole death-eligibility factor in California, and was presented to the jury at the guilt phase of trial. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in 2013. Rogers is one of about 140 defendants whose California death sentences have been affirmed on appeal but have never had state habeas counsel.