JAMES WARRANT: Florida Supreme Court denies claims
This afternoon, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision denying Edward James' claims ahead of his execution scheduled a week from today.
Edward James’ execution is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 20. If completed, it will be the second execution in the State this year.
This afternoon, the Florida Supreme Court issued a 25-page per curiam opinion denying James’ pending claims.
Postconviction Appeal
On James’ appeal of the circuit court’s summary denial of his postconviction claims, the Court reviewed each claim. First, as to James’ claim that his 30+ year stay on death row is unconstitutional, the Court said, even assuming “that neither untimeliness nor a procedural bar precludes consideration of this claim on the merits, James is not entitled to relief.” The Court noted that it has repeatedly denied similar claims. Further, the Court “agree[d] with the circuit court that even in light of James’s allegations relating to cognitive and physical issues and other hardships, James’s death sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”
On James’ second claim related to his brain scans, the Court said he “did not offer offer argument in support of the second of the two prongs required in order to prevail on a claim of newly discovered evidence.” The Court found dispositive “James’s failure to demonstrate that he would probably receive a less severe sentence at a new penalty phase.”
Finally, as to James’ claim related to the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation for death, the Court denied the claim, noting it’s rejected similar claims in prior warrant cases.
Habeas Petition
As to James’ claims in his habeas petition that the “Court should reconsider its prior decision that his postconviction claims were untimely,” the Court clarified at the beginning of its analysis that “James seeks to revisit prior competency issues, he does not argue that he is incompetent to be executed.” Nor does he claim that is he intellectually disabled. The Court “decline[d] to revisit [its] decision affirming the findings that his postconviction claims were untimely” and “reject[ed] James’s argument that a failure to reconsider his timeliness rulings amounts to manifest injustice.”
The Court also denied James’ request for a stay of execution. A full copy of the decision can be found on the Court’s website here.
TFDP Prior Coverage of the James Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
Long time coming!