This afternoon, Gov. DeSantis issued a death warrant scheduling Chadwick Willacy’s execution for April 21. It is the sixth death warrant in the State this year.
This is a fairly long warrant period, at 39 days. That said, it is not unheard of for Gov. DeSantis. In 2023, James Barnes’ warrant period was 42 days. Duane Owen’s was 37. (Read more here.)
Florida Supreme Court Scheduling Order
Shortly after the warrant was issued, the Florida Supreme Court issued a Scheduling Order for warrant-related litigation, which outlines the following schedule:
Thursday, April 2 at 11:00 a.m.: conclusion of circuit court proceedings
Thursday, April 2 at 1:00 p.m.: notice of appeal and any writ petition
Monday, April 6 at 2:00 p.m.: initial brief due
Wednesday, April 8 at 5:00 p.m.: answer brief due
Wednesday, April 9 at 2:00 p.m.: reply brief due
Background of Willacy’s Case
Willacy was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Brevard County for murdering Marlys Sather in 1990.
On September 5, 1990, Marlys Sather returned home unexpectedly to find Willacy, her next-door neighbor, burglarizing her house. Willacy bludgeoned Sather and bound her ankles with wire and duct tape. He choked and strangled her with a cord with a force so intense that a portion of her skull was dislodged. Willacy then obtained Sather’s ATM pin number, her ATM card, and the keys to her car; drove to her bank; and withdrew money out of her account. Willacy hid Sather’s car around the block while he made trips to and from the house. He placed stolen items on Sather’s porch for later retrieval, took a significant amount of property from Sather’s house to his house, and then drove the car to Lynbrook Plaza where he left it and jogged back to Sather’s home. Upon his return, Willacy disabled the smoke detectors, doused Sather with gasoline he had taken from the garage, placed a fan from the guest room at her feet to provide more oxygen for the fire, and struck several matches as he set her on fire.
When Sather failed to return to work after lunch, her employer notified the Sather family of her absence. Sather’s son-in-law went to her home and found a shotgun and several electronic items lying on the back porch. Inside the home, he found Sather’s body. Medical testimony established that her death was caused by inhalation of smoke from her burning body.
Law enforcement officers conducted an investigation into Sather’s murder, uncovering a large amount of evidence linking Willacy to the murder. Willacy’s fingerprints were found on the fan at Sather’s feet, the gas can, and a tape rewinder at Sather’s house. Witnesses reported seeing a man matching Willacy’s description near Sather’s house and driving Sather’s car on the day of the murder. Further, Willacy’s girlfriend, Marisa Walcott, telephoned law enforcement officers after discovering a woman’s check register in Willacy’s wastebasket. Law enforcement officers recognized the check register as belonging to Sather and subsequently arrested Willacy. While executing a search warrant on Willacy’s home, law enforcement agents uncovered some of Sather’s property, as well as several articles of clothing containing blood consistent with Sather’s blood type.1
Trial and Direct Appeal
Willacy was tried in October 1991. After the penalty phase, the jury recommended death by a vote of 9-3, and the trial court sentenced Willacy to death on December 10, 1991.2
On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Willacy’s conviction but vacated Willacy’s sentence of death “based on Willacy's claim that the trial court did not give defense counsel an opportunity to rehabilitate a juror who said she was opposed to the death penalty.”3
After a second penalty phase, the jury recommended death by a vote of 11-1, and the trial court again sentenced Willacy to death on November 20, 1995.4
On direct appeal, Willacy raised eleven issues:
(1) the denial of Willacy’s motion for recusal of the judge; (2) the admission of inflammatory evidence; (3) the finding that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); (4) the finding that the murder was committed to evade arrest; (5) the finding that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain; (6) the finding that the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner (CCP); (7) the proportionality of the death sentence; (8) the admission of victim impact evidence; (9) the refusal to strike jurors for cause; (10) cumulative error; and (11) the constitutionality of the death penalty statute.5
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence.
Postconviction and State Habeas
On May 11, 1998, Willacy filed a postconviction motion, which he amended in March 2002. The circuit court granted and held an evidentiary hearing on several of Willacy’s claims. On November 23, 2004, the circuit court issued an Order denying Willacy’s motion.
On appeal, Willacy raised seven issues:
(1) the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on claims 4, 6, and 15 of his motion for postconviction relief; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to assert the independent act defense; (3) counsel was ineffective for failing to move to recuse the trial judge at the resentencing proceeding; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors; (5) counsel was ineffective for failing to inquire regarding juror Clark’s status; (6) the trial court erred in failing to retroactively apply this Court’s decision in Lowrey v. State, 705 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1998); and (7) the trial court erred in denying Willacy’s motion for postconviction DNA testing.6
Willacy also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising the following claims:
(1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal lack of probable cause to arrest Willacy or to search Willacy’s residence; (2) Willacy was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by having a juror who was pending prosecution serve as the foreman on his jury; (3) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the fundamental error resulting from the trial court’s failure to swear prospective jurors; (4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the jury was improperly instructed as to the aggravating circumstance of cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP); (5) Willacy was sentenced to death in violation of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 . . . (2002); (6) death by lethal injection violates article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (7) Willacy’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment may be violated as he may be incompetent at the time of execution.7
On June 28, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Willacy’s motion and also denied his habeas petition.
Federal Habeas
“After he had exhausted his state appeals, Willacy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, raising several claims including his fair trial and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The district court denied Willacy relief and denied him a certificate of appealability.”8 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit “granted Willacy a certificate of appealability on his claims that his right to a fair trial was violated when the State failed to inform the trial court of Clark’s ineligibility to serve as a juror, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to conduct adequate voir dire of Clark to discover his ineligibility, and trial counsel’s investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at Willacy’s penalty phase was constitutionally deficient.”9
In March 2017, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial. Then, in July 2017, the Court granted Willacy’s motion for rehearing and issued a substituted opinion, again affirming the denial.
Successive Postconviction
After Hurst,10 Willacy sought relief based on the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation for death. In 2018, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of his claim.
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
Willacy v. State, 967 So. 2d 131, 135 (Fla. 2007).
Id.
Id. at 136.
Id.
Id. at n.6.
Id. at 138.
Id. at 145-46.
Willacy v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 703 F. App’x 744, 750-51 (11th Cir. 2017).
Id. at 751.