JAMES ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER, V. LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Adams, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief motion and petitions for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, rejecting his arguments that his death sentence relied on an unconstitutional prior conviction and that Florida's death penalty is imposed arbitrarily and discriminatorily.
The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief and denied the habeas corpus petition. The Court held that even if the Tennessee conviction was improperly used, the death sentence is still supported by at least two other valid statutory aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstances. The Court also rejected the claim that Florida's death penalty scheme is arbitrary and discriminatory, finding this issue already disposed of in prior precedent.
[1] A prior conviction, even if alleged to be unconstitutional, may be used as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing if it has not been set aside or vacated.
[2] A death sentence may be upheld if supported by at least two valid statutory aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, even if one alleged aggravating cir…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Even assuming the improper use of the prior conviction as an aggravating circumstance, there are at least two other valid statutory aggravating circumstances established in this record and no mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the death sentence is still supported by this record.”
Establishes that even if the Tennessee conviction was improperly used, sufficient aggravating circumstances independently support the death penalty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Adams was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. At sentencing, the trial court relied partly on Adams' 1962 Tennessee rape co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Capital Case Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Adams appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus, and seeks a stay of execution. We deny all relief.
There have been five appellate proceedings concerning Adams’ conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of death. In Adams v. State, 341 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 878, 98 S.Ct. 232, 54 L.Ed.2d 158 (1977), this Court, in Adams’ direct appeal, affirmed both the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. In Adams v. State, 355 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 340, 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1978), this Court rejected Adams’ Gardner challenge to his sentence. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977).
In Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1980), this Court resolved a dispute concerning the appointment of counsel for Adams’ post-conviction relief motion. In Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980), this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. In addition, in Adams v. Wainwright, 709 F. 2d 1443 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 745, 79 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Adams’ petition for writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In his petition for rule 3.850 relief, Adams asserts that his death sentence should be vacated on two grounds: (1) the death sentence was imposed in substantial reliance upon an unconstitutional prior conviction in Tennessee and (2) the death penalty is imposed in Florida in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner on the basis of improper factors.
With regard to the first issue, Adams asserts that the trial court and this Court improperly used as an aggravating circumstance his 1962 conviction for rape in the state of Tennessee. That conviction has never been set aside or vacated. To accept Adams’ argument this Court would first have to declare the Tennessee conviction unconstitutional. Even assuming the improper use of the prior conviction as an aggravating circumstance, there are at least two other valid statutory aggravating circumstances established in this record and no mitigating circumstances.
Consequently, the death sentence is still supported by this record. See Francois v. State, 407 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 3511, 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 (1982); Hargrave v. State, 366 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 919, 100 S.Ct. 239, 62 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979); Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1977). More important, however, is the fact that this issue could have been raised in the first appeal to this Court and, consequently, it will not now support a collateral attack. Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980); Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla.1979); Spenkelink v. State, 350 So. 2d 85 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 960, 98 S.Ct. 492, 54 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977).
We also reject Adams’ second ground for relief that the Florida death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. This same issue has been raised and disposed of by this Court in Sullivan v. State, 441 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1983). See also Sullivan v. Wainwright, 721 F. 2d 316 (11th Cir.1983).
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Adams requests that this Court revisit our decision in Aldridge v. Wainwright, 433 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1983), where we upheld the constitutionality of the direction in our standard jury instructions that the trial judge instruct the jury on all lesser degrees of homicide in a capital case. We decline to revisit this issue, particularly in this cause where Adams, on his initial appeal, questioned only the wording of the second-degree murder definition in the instructions and did not otherwise object at trial to the giving of the lesser-degree instructions. We find the allegations in support of habeas corpus relief to be without merit.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying Adams’ motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed and the petition for habe-as corpus is denied, as is the motion for stay of execution. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sireci v. State, 469 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1985)…. 2d 808 (Fla.1982). Appellant’s contention that his death sentence was a product of systematic racial discrimination in this state capital sentencing procedure is without merit. We recently rejected this claim in Smith v. State and Adams v. State, 449 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1984). The Supreme Court of the United States most recently rejected this claim in Wainwright v. Ford, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3498, 82 L.Ed.2d 911 (1984). The statistical evidence presented by appellant fails to alter our view on this matter. This…
-
O'Callaghan v. State, 461 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1984)…istance of counsel at both the guilt and sentencing phases of his trial. First, O’Callaghan’s claim that death penalty imposition in Florida is arbitrary and discriminatory has been previously raised and disposed of by this Court in Adams v. State, 449 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1984), and Sullivan v. State, 441 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1983). See also Wainwright v. Adams, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 2183, 80 L.Ed.2d 809 (1984); Sullivan v. Wainwright, 721 F. 2d 316 (11th Cir.1983). The second issue relating to the change of testimony…
-
Tafero v. State, 459 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1984)…nstitutionally imposed on the basis of race and sex. Starting with Spinkellink v. Wainwright, this claim has been rejected numerous times. E.g., Martin v. State, 455 So. 2d 370 (Fla.1984); Jackson v. State, 452 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1984); Adams v. State, 449 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1984). We refuse to reconsider the issue here. We hold that the trial court properly denied Tafero’s motions to vacate and to stay execution and affirm the trial court’s orders. We deny his motion for stay of execution in this Court. No petiti…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (23 total)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977)
- Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1977)
- Adams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 709 F.2d 1443 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Lenson Hargrave v. State, 366 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1978)
- Adams v. State, 341 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1976)
- Vasquez v. McAllen Bag & Supply Co., 458 U.S. 1122 (U.S. 1982)
- Middleton v. South Carolina, 434 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1977)
- Magda v. United States, 434 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1977)
- Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980)
- Spenkelink v. State, 350 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1977)