ROY ALLEN STEWART, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Roy Stewart, a death row inmate, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution, claiming the death penalty is imposed in Florida in a racially discriminatory manner. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that such claims must be raised in post-conviction motions and cannot be raised for the first time in habeas corpus proceedings, and that Stewart was procedurally barred from raising the claim.
The court held that claims of racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty must be presented in post-conviction motions and cannot be raised for the first time in habeas corpus proceedings. Stewart was procedurally barred from raising the claim because he did not include it in his previous 3.850 motion.
[1] A claim that the death penalty is imposed in a racially discriminatory manner should be presented in a motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] A claim of arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty due to racial discrimination cannot be raised for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a claim of arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty because of racial discrimination should be presented in a motion for post-conviction relief”
Establishes that racial discrimination claims in capital cases are cognizable but must be raised through the proper procedural vehicle
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart is a state prisoner under sentence of death for whom a second death warrant has been signed. He previously had his convictions and sentences a…
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 Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stewart, a state prisoner under sentence of death for whom a second death warrant has been signed, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus and requests a stay of execution.* We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. Stewart claims that the death penalty is imposed in Florida in a racially discriminatory manner. Because the United States Supreme Court has granted review in two cases which present the same issue (McCleskey v. Kemp, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3331, 92 L.Ed.2d 737 (1986), Hitchcock v. Wainwright, 90 L.Ed.2d 976, 106 S.Ct. 2888, 90 L.Ed.2d 976 (1986)), Stewart claims that we should reconsider our previous rulings on this matter or, at least, hold this case pending resolution of McCleskey and Hitchcock.
In his petition Stewart states that the instant claim “is not cognizable in the trial court in post-conviction proceedings,” citing State v. Henry, 456 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1984). This is a misreading of Henry, wherein we held that Henry had not presented a color-able claim, not that he had not presented a cognizable claim. We have consistently held that a claim of arbitrary and capricious imposition of the. death penalty because of racial discrimination should be presented in a motion for post-conviction relief. E.g., Smith v. State, 457 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1984); Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1980); Henry v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1979). Moreover, we have specifically held that such a claim cannot be raised for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding. Ford v. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1984). Stewart did not raise this claim in his previous 3.850 motion, and he is procedurally barred from raising it in this petition. The petition for habeas corpus, therefore, is denied as is the requested stay of execution.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ„ concur. BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which BOYD, J., concurs.
*
We previously affirmed Stewart’s convictions and sentences, Stewart v. State, 420 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1103, 103 S.Ct. 1802, 76 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983), and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Stewart’s Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion filed after the signing of his first death warrant. Stewart v. State, 481 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1985).
BARKETT, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree that a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty statute on grounds that it is being systematically applied in a racially discriminatory manner should be presented in a motion for post-conviction relief rather than by way of habeas corpus. This is the appropriate means to place the issue before the fact finder to determine the validity of the allegations that the death penalty is being arbitrarily and capriciously imposed.
BOYD, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sireci, 502 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1987)…petition for writ of habeas corpus. The allegation that the death penalty is imposed in a racially discriminatory manner must be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief as opposed to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Stewart v. Wainwright, 494 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1986); Hardwick v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 796 (Fla.1986). Further, we have already rejected the identical claim raised by Sireci on his initial motion for post-conviction relief. 469 So. 2d at 120. Moreover, Sireci would be procedurally barred…
-
Hall v. State, 541 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1989)…efore, that Hitchcock claims should be presented to the trial court in a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and that, after the filing of this opinion, such claims will not be cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings.4 Stewart v. Wainwright, 494 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1986). It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. McDONALD, j., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON, J., concurs. GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion. . Hall also raises the following issues: (1) vi…
-
Rose v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)…h court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Davis v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1986); Stewart v. Wainwright, 494 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1986). Rose’s next claim is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal. We must examine this allegation of ineffectiveness under the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.…
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
- Stewart v. State, 420 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1982)
- Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)
- Stewart v. Florida, 460 U.S. 1103 (U.S. 1983)
- Smith v. State, 457 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1984)
- Henry v. State, 377 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Henry, 456 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1984)
- Ford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1984)
- THE Florida BAR v. Mike, 451 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1984)
- Stewart v. State, 481 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1985)