JERRY WHITE, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, 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.
Jerry White petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution following his conviction for murder during an armed robbery. The Florida Supreme Court denied both the petition and stay, rejecting White's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, mental retardation, withheld records, and lack of counsel for clemency proceedings.
The Court denied White's petition for writ of habeas corpus and request for stay of execution. The Court rejected the ineffective assistance claim after prior argument, found the mental retardation and withheld records claims procedurally barred, and determined the clemency counsel issue moot because White's lawyer had filed a clemency petition.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on collateral review due to counsel's workload and time constraints may be decided adversely to the petitioner.
[2] A claim of mental retardation and resulting cruel and unusual punishment is procedurally barred if it could and should have been raised in prior proceedings.
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“White was convicted of robbing a small grocery store in Taft, Florida, and shooting a customer to death.”
Establishes the underlying crime for which White sought habeas relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite was convicted of robbing a small grocery store in Taft, Florida, and shooting a customer to death. The case arose in the context of a signed dea…
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 Collateral Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have before us a petition for writ of habeas corpus and request for stay of execution. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. We deny both.
White was convicted of robbing a small grocery store in Taft, Florida, and shooting a customer to death. The facts and procedural history are set out fully in White v. State, No. 86,900, 664 So. 2d 242 (Fla.1995). White raises four claims in his present petition.
• White first asserts that he has been denied effective assistance of counsel on collateral review because his counsel, provided by the Office of the Capital Collateral Representative (“CCR”), is overworked and forced to labor under severe time constraints. We have already heard argument on this issue and decided the matter adversely to White shortly after the governor signed the present death warrant.
White next claims that he is mentally retarded and his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This issue could and should have been raised in prior proceedings and is proeedurally barred. See Scott v. State, 657 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1995).
Third, White claims that records of the Florida Parole Commission and the Florida Board of Executive Clemency were withheld from him in violation of his constitutional rights. We find this claim proeedurally barred because it could and should have been raised in prior proceedings.
White’s last claim is that his constitutional rights were violated because he was without counsel to present a clemency petition to the governor. We do not address this issue because White’s lawyer has in fact filed such a petition.
We deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus and request for stay of execution.
It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
By separate opinion, I have dissented to this Court’s opinion in Case Nos. 86,900 and 86,901 affirming the denial of postconviction relief. Earlier, Justices Shaw and Kogan had dissented to our denial of CCR’s request for a stay of appellant’s execution in order to allow for a reasonable opportunity to investigate appellant’s postconviction claims. Now that it is apparent that there are several matters of substance requiring a stay and further investigation, I would now join my colleagues in granting a stay. For that reason, I dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion denying a stay in order to permit a reasonable and orderly investigation of the postconvietion claims.
SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beauford White v. State, 937 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
-
Hill v. Butterworth, 941 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Fla. 1996)…s denied. Id. at 73. Similarly, in 1995, CCR asserted it could not provide effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings because it was “overworked and forced to labor under severe time constraints.” White v. Singletary, 663 So.2d 1324, 1325 (Fla.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 591, 133 L.Ed.2d 505 (1995). The Supreme Court of Florida again rejected this argument. See White, 663 So.2d at 1325. In June, 1995, Michael Minerva, the head of CCR, sought relief from…
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. State, 657 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Eversole, 664 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1995)
- White v. State, 664 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1995)