WARRANT: Background on James Ford's sentence of death
Gov. DeSantis has scheduled James Ford’s execution for 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025. This post includes the Florida Supreme Court's scheduling order and background on Ford's case.
This afternoon, Gov. DeSantis signed the first death warrant of 2025, scheduling James Ford’s execution for 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025. (Read more here.)
Florida Supreme Court Scheduling Order
Shortly after the warrant, the Florida Supreme Court issued a Scheduling Order for warrant-related litigation. The schedule is as follows:
January 24 at 11:00 a.m.: circuit court proceedings completed
January 27 at 9:00 a.m.: notice of appeal and habeas petition due to Florida Supreme Court
January 27 at 3:00 p.m.: record on appeal due to Florida Supreme Court
January 29 at 3:00 p.m.: Initial Brief due to Florida Supreme Court
January 31 at 3:00 p.m.: Answer Brief due to Florida Supreme Court
February 3 at 3:00 p.m.: Reply Brief due to Florida Supreme Court
The Florida Supreme Court docket can be accessed here.
Background on Ford’s Case
Trial and Direct Appeal
James Ford was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing Greg and Kimberly Malnory in Charlotte County in 1997.1 He was sentenced to death for both murders following the jury’s recommendations for death by a vote of 11-1.2 At sentencing, the trial court found four aggravating factors and assigned the following weight:
the murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner (HAC) (great weight);
the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated fashion (CCP) (great weight);
the murder took place during the commission of a sexual battery (great weight); and
Ford previously was convicted of another capital felony, i.e., the contemporaneous murder (great weight).3
The court also found two statutory mitigating circumstances and assigned the following weight:
no significant history of prior criminal activity (some weight); and
the young mental age of the defendant (very little weight).4
Further, the court found the following nonstatutory mitigation and assigned the following weight:
Ford was a devoted son (very little weight);
Ford was a loyal friend (very little weight);
Ford is learning disabled (no weight);
developmental age of fourteen (no weight);
family history of alcoholism (not mitigating vis-a-vis the death penalty in general, no weight);
chronic alcoholic (very little weight);
diabetic (not mitigating vis-a-vis the death penalty in general, no weight);
excellent jail record (some weight);
engaged in self-improvement while in jail (some weight);
the school system failed to help (proven, very little weight);
not a sociopath or a psychopath (not mitigating vis-a-vis the death penalty in general, no weight);
not antisocial (not mitigating vis-a-vis the death penalty in general, no weight); and
the alternative sentence is life without parole (not mitigating vis-a-vis the death penalty in general, no weight).5
In 2001, on direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Ford’s convictions and sentence of death. Justice Pariente filed a concurring in result only opinion, and Justice Anstead joined. Ford’s sentences of death became final on May 28, 2002—just a month before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona.
Initial Postconviction
In 2003, Ford filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel:
(1) trial counsel pursued the defense of voluntary intoxication over Ford's objection and without his permission or consent; (2) trial counsel waived Ford's speedy trial rights over his objection and without his permission; and (3) trial counsel failed to present evidence showing that Ford was mentally retarded.6
At an evidentiary hearing on the motion, Ford abandoned the third claim. On July 12, 2004, the trial court entered an order denying Ford’s motion. On appeal in 2007, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ford’s claims.7
Federal Habeas
On June 11, 2007, Ford filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. On September 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed his petition as untimely.8
Successive Postconviction
On March 20, 2013, Ford filed a successive motion for postconviction relief. The trial court summarily denied his motion on December 20, 2013. Ford appealed, raising three claims:
1) he is entitled to postconviction relief because Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013), establish an equitable right to bring ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claims; (2) the current lethal injection protocol in Florida is unconstitutional; and (3) non-unanimous jury verdicts recommending the death sentence violate evolving standards of human decency under the Eighth Amendment.9
The Court unanimously affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Ford’s motion.
Ford also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the Court denied as untimely.10
Hurst Relief
After Hurst, Ford sought relief from his death sentences due to the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation for death.11 On January 23, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court denied Ford’s claim because Hurst did not apply retroactively to his case.12
He missed the cutoff by less than one month. The Florida Supreme Court determined that the cutoff for retroactivity of Hurst was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona on June 24, 2002.
TFDP Prior Coverage of the Ford Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1126 (Fla. 2001).
Id.
Id. at n.1.
Id. at n.2.
Id. at n.3.
Ford v. State, 955 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 2007).
Id. at 556.
Ford v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 2009 WL 3028886, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2009).
Ford v. State, 168 So. 3d 224, at *1 (Fla. 2015).
Id. at *2. The Court also said his claim was without merit. Id.
Ford v. State, 237 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2018).