WARRANT: James' claims fully briefed at Florida Supreme Court
As of this morning, the briefing is now complete in both of James' pending cases at the Florida Supreme Court ahead of his scheduled execution next week.
Edward James’ execution is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on March 20. If completed, it will be the second execution in the State this year.
On February 28, James appealed the circuit court’s written order denying James’ successive motion for postconviction relief. On March 5, James filed his Initial Brief in that appeal. (More here.) On Friday, March 7, the State filed its Answer Brief. This morning, James filed his Reply Brief.
On March 3, James filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for stay of execution at the Court. (More here.) On March 7, the State filed its Response. This morning, James filed his Reply.
The briefing is now complete in both cases. It is unclear when the Court will issue its decision.
James’ Appeal of Circuit Court’s Ruling
You can read about James’ claims on appeal here.
State’s Answer Brief
The State’s arguments in response to James’ are summarized as follows. On the first claim:
James’ argument that the “totality of circumstances” he has suffered during his 30-year confinement on death row violates the Eighth Amendment fails to establish grounds for relief. His claims are untimely, procedurally barred, he is competent to be executed, and this is not the proper venue to challenge the conditions of his confinement.
On James’ second claim:
New medical evidence indicating that James suffers from cognitive decline is untimely and fails to meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence under prevailing law. It could have been discovered earlier through diligent inquiry and James fails to allege that this evidence would have likely resulted in a life sentence had it been presented at trial.
On James’ third claim:
James’ jury unanimity claim was correctly denied. This Court has repeatedly held that a unanimous death recommendation is not constitutionally required to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty. What is required, rather, is that the jury must have found at least one statutory aggravating circumstance to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, as this Court already held the first time James raised this issue, there is no deficiency in James’ death sentences because he pled guilty to a contemporaneous first-degree murder and sexual battery of a child that satisfy the prior or contemporaneous violent felony aggravator. The postconviction court’s summary denial of this claim must be affirmed.
The State “submits that oral argument is not necessary” on James’ appeal.
The State also filed a response to James’ motion to stay the execution.
James’ Reply Brief
As to the State’s argument on timeliness on Count I, James “urges th[e] Court to reconsider its prior rulings.” Further, James argues his claim is different than prior claims referenced in the State’s brief.
On Count II, James argues that the federal district court already determined the claim is timely.
On Count III, James argues that “[t]he State, like the circuit court, misunderstands what constitutional violations are being alleged” and reiterates “[t]his is not a Hurst claim.”
A full copy of the filings can be found on the docket here.
James’ Habeas Petition
You can read about James’ petition for writ of habeas corpus here.
State’s Response
In response to James’ petition, the State argues “[t]here are multiple reasons why this Court should deny James’ Petition.” First, the State argues the petition is untimely. Second, the State argues the petition “merely asks th[e] Court to revisit its earlier decisions finding that James’ belated postconviction motion filed in November 2005 was untimely.”
On the merits, the State argues that James’ request for the Court to revisit its prior “rulings amounts to an abuse of the writ and should be denied.” The State further argues that his arguments related to his mental decline could and should have been raised much earlier. Regardless, the State argues “James remains competent to be executed” and “there is no manifest injustice here.”
The State also filed a response to James’ motion to stay the execution. The arguments mirror the arguments made in the circuit court—that “the victims’ family members have a constitutional right for James’ proceedings to be free from unreasonable delay, and they also have a right to a prompt and final conclusion of his post judgment proceedings.”
James’ Reply
In his Reply, James argues that “[t]he State’s timeliness and procedural arguments are incorrect.” James argues that “his prior postconviction waiver does not abrogate his ability to seek relief from this Court’s prior procedural rulings based on the extraordinary circumstances of his case.” He argues that his “petition identified multiple fundamental constitutional violations at his trial that have never received merits review due to procedural rulings that—left undisturbed—will create a manifest injustice.” To that end, James argues that the State “employs the wrong standard for manifest injustice.”
A full copy of the filings can be found on the docket here.
TFDP Prior Coverage of the James Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.