EDWARD CLIFFORD THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Edward Clifford Thomas appeals his death sentence for two counts of first-degree murder, seeking post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Florida Supreme Court vacates his death sentence and remands for a new sentencing hearing, finding that the record leaves unresolved whether the trial court considered nonstatutory mitigating evidence as required by Hitchcock v. Dugger and Lockett v. Ohio.
The Court vacates Thomas' death sentence and remands for a new sentencing hearing before the trial judge. The record demonstrates that the trial court did not consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, as the jury was instructed it could not consider such factors and the trial court made certain comments indicating it excluded such evidence. The other issues raised are rendered moot by this holding, and Thomas' ineffective assistance claim at the guilt phase is without merit.
[1] A claim of Hitchcock error, which concerns the improper exclusion of nonstatutory mitigating evidence in capital sentencing, can be raised for the first time in a postcon…
[2] A prior finding of harmless error on a Hitchcock claim raised in a habeas corpus petition does not necessarily preclude a subsequent review of the same claim in a rule 3.…
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“There is no doubt that the jury was told it could not consider nonstatutory mitigating factors. This fact, coupled with certain comments made by the trial court, leads us to the conclusion that the trial court did not consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances during the sentencing proceeding.”
Establishes the Court's basis for finding constitutional violation regarding consideration of nonstatutory mitigating evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was convicted in 1981 of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on one count despite a unanimous jury recommendation of life.…
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 Jury Override cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Clifford Thomas appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate or modify judgment and sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons which follow we vacate Thomas’ sentence of death and remand this case for a full sentencing hearing before the trial judge.
Thomas was convicted in 1981 of two counts of first-degree murder. Over a unanimous jury recommendation of life, the trial court sentenced Thomas to death on one of the counts, finding four valid aggravating circumstances and two statutory mitigating circumstances. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed both the judgment and the sentence. Thomas v. State, 456 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1984). Following the signing of a death warrant in 1986, this Court granted a stay of execution but later denied Thomas’ petition for a writ of habe- as corpus. Thomas v. Wainwright, 495 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 911, 107 S.Ct. 1360, 94 L.Ed.2d 530 (1987).
At that time, Thomas filed this rule 3.850 motion which the trial court denied without an evidentiary hearing in February of 1988. This appeal followed. Thomas raises several points of error on appeal.1 We believe that the record in this case leaves unresolved the question of whether the trial court considered nonstatutory mitigating evidence. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). There is no doubt that the jury was told it could not consider nonstatutory mitigating factors. This fact, coupled with certain comments made by the trial court, leads us to the conclusion that the trial court did not consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances during the sentencing proceeding. It is therefore necessary to have a new sentencing proceeding before the trial court. At that proceeding both parties may present all available evidence in aggravation or mitigation relevant to the issue of the appropriate sentence in this case. Although no jury is to be impaneled, Thomas will have the benefit of the first jury’s recommendation of life.
The other issues pertaining to the sentence raised by Thomas, including the issue of counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness at the sentencing phase, are rendered moot by our holding that a new sentencing hearing is required. Thomas’ claim that counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase is wholly without merit.
Accordingly, we vacate Thomas’ sentence of death and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . These issues are:
1) whether the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing was error;
2) whether the trial court failed to consider nonstatutory mitigating evidence;
3) whether Thomas received effective assistance of counsel;
4) whether Thomas was improperly denied the opportunity to rebut information contained in the presentence investigation report;
5) whether the trial court’s jury override was proper;
6) whether Thomas’ attorney client privilege was violated;
7) whether Thomas’ guilty verdict was the product of an improper deal by members of the jury;
8) whether Thomas’ sole mental health expert failed to conduct a professionally competent and appropriate examination; and,
9) whether this Court erred in precluding consideration of lingering doubt as a mitigating circumstance.
Issues 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 could have been, or were raised on direct appeal, and are thus procedurally barred in this proceeding. The first four issues raised are not barred and must be dealt with at this juncture.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hitchcock v. State, 578 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1990)…r. Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988).6 Hitchcock’s being found guilty is the law of this case, and this Court has consistently held that lingering doubt is not appropriate mitigating evidence. Thomas v. State, 546 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1989); King v. State, 514 So. 2d 354 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L.Ed.2d 947 (1988); Aldridge v. State, 503 So. 2d 1257 (Fla.1987); Burr v. State, 466 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 879, 106 S.Ct. 20…
-
Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1997)…ses. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542-3, 18 S.Ct. 183, 186-7, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897); Harris v. Dugger, 874 F. 2d 756, 761 (11th Cir.1989); Thomas v. [*330] State, 456 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla.1984), post-conviction relief granted on other grounds, 546 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1989); Brewer v. State, 386 So. 2d 232, 235-6 (Fla.1980). In this case, though, we can find no support for Johnson’s assertions outside of his own self-serving statements. Indeed, his current position is even inconsistent with his own prior sta…
-
State v. Gifford, 558 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…iod of fourteen hours prior to the confession. His testimony of inability to remember the entire interrogation is insufficient to establish intoxication. Thomas v. State, 456 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1984), judgment aff'd, sentence vacated and case remanded, 546 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1989). Nor was there evidence of coercion or threats made against appellee. His belief that the detective harbored ill will towards him was subjective, not caused by the detective’s conduct and not grounds for suppression. Thomas, 456 So. 2d at…
Authorities Cited
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978)
- Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1987)
- THE Florida BAR v. Norvell, 456 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1984)
- Morgan v. United States, 480 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1987)
- Thomas v. Louie L. Wainwright, 495 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1986)