TANZI WARRANT: Tanzi appeals circuit court denial

On March 10, Gov. DeSantis signed a death warrant scheduling Michael Tanzi’s execution for April 8 at 6:00 p.m. On Wednesday, the circuit court denied Michael Tanzi's claims.

Mar 21, 2025

On March 10, Gov. DeSantis signed a death warrant scheduling Michael Tanzi’s execution for April 8 at 6:00 p.m. (More here.) On Wednesday, the circuit court denied Tanzi’s claims. Yesterday, Tanzi filed an appeal of that ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. Tanzi also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court.

Circuit Court Denial

The State filed its response to Tanzi’s motion on March 17. That same day, the Court held a case management conference and Huff hearing. The trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on any of Tanzi’s claims.

Circuit Court Order

On Wednesday, the Court issued a 14-page Order denying Tanzi’s claims.

On Tanzi’s first claim related to the compressed warrant period, the court determined the claim is untimely because Tanzi “was aware that he had become death eligible when his conviction and sentence became final in 2015, and he could have challenged the lethal injection protocols as applied to him anytime since then.” Note that the DOC updates the lethal injection protocol every two years, so this means Tanzi (and every other death row prisoner) would have to challenge the protocol every two years on the chance that he is chosen for execution within the window of that protocol’s life to preserve that claim.

Further, on Tanzi’s argument that he was denied access to public records, the court determined Tanzi “failed to demonstrate what colorable claim relates to any of his broad public records demands.”

On Tanzi’s second claim regarding Florida’s lethal injection claims, the court determined the claim is untimely because Tanzi has “long known of his medical conditions, heavy weight and asserted back issues.” Further, the court determined the claim is without merit. In part, the Court said:

The Defendant also argues that his obesity will compromise placement of the intravenous lines. Difficulty in achieving venous access is based on sheer speculation and does not set forth a valid Eight Amendment claim. See Cole, 392 So. 3d at 1065 (finding Cole’s allegations of potential problems with venous access speculative and legally insufficient).
The Defendant argues that due to sciatica and cervical disease, he is unable to lay flat without experiencing intense pain. However, as the United States Supreme Court has recognized, the Eighth Amendment does not require “the avoidance of all risk of pain” in any method of execution. Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119, 134 (2019).

On Tanzi’s third claim related to the Governor’s authority on death warrants, the court said the claim is procedurally barred “because it could have been raised previously.” Note that Tanzi likely wouldn’t have been able to raise this claim previously because a court wouldn’t have found it ripe until Tanzi had an active warrant. The court further determined that the claim is barred by Supreme Court precedent.