JAMES ADAMS, 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.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Gardner v. Florida decision requiring disclosure of information relied upon in capital sentencing, James Adams applied for relief claiming the trial judge improperly considered undisclosed information. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the application, finding the trial judge relied solely on Adams' own trial testimony regarding his prior convictions.
The Court held that the application for relief was without merit because the trial judge relied solely on Adams' own testimony given at trial, which Adams had ample opportunity to explain or refute during trial proceedings.
[1] A defendant has an opportunity to deny or explain factual findings relied upon by a trial judge in a sentencing order when those findings are based on the defendant's own…
[2] A trial court's use of a defendant's own testimony from trial in its sentencing order does not violate the principles established in Gardner v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant complains of nothing more than the use by the trial court of his testimony given at trial in sentencing the appellant. Appellant had ample opportunity to explain or refute his own testimony at trial.”
The court's rationale for rejecting the Gardner claim—the judge used only the defendant's own testimony, not secret information
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams received a death sentence. In the sentencing order, the trial judge found that Adams had been convicted of crimes on at least five prior occasio…
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 Right To Confront Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), this Court entered its order on May 6, 1977, establishing a procedure whereby the trial judge who imposed the death sentence was directed to file a response stating whether he imposed the sentence on the basis of consideration of any information not known to appellant. This order also provided that any application for relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Gardner v. Florida, supra, should be filed with this Court within thirty (30) days after the trial judge had filed his response pursuant to this Court’s directive.
On May 12, 1977, the trial court filed its response stating that in imposing the death sentence it “did not have any information whatsoever, either as listed herein or otherwise . . . which [the court] used as a basis for consideration in imposing the death sentence which was not known to the appellant and/or his counsel of record.”
In his application for relief, appellant argues that he has had no opportunity to deny or explain certain factual findings relied on by the trial judge in his sentencing order. The order, which set forth specific findings of fact on which the death sentence was imposed, states in part:
By his own admission the defendant was previously convicted of crimes on at least five occasions and the further undisputed evidence shows the defendant has a record involving crimes of violence . . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
Appellant contends that he has not been convicted on five previous occasions and that the evidence before the trial court did not show that he had been convicted of prior crimes involving violence but that he had only one previous conviction for rape in Tennessee in 1962.
The admission of five previous crimes to which the trial court referred in its sentencing order was appellant’s response during cross-examination. In response to the state attorney’s question regarding how many times he had been convicted of a crime, appellant stated: “Maybe five or more, I don’t know, something like that.” (R-926).
The Court finds this application for relief pursuant to Gardner v. Florida to be without merit. Appellant complains of nothing more than the use by the trial court of his testimony given at trial in sentencing the appellant. Appellant had ample opportunity to explain or refute his own testimony at trial.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and KARL, JJ., concur. HATCHETT, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980)…accurate information violated due process standards as stated in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and thus entitled appellant to a new sentencing hearing. This application for relief was denied. Adams v. State, 355 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 340, 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1978). In the instant petition, appellant first contends that (a) there was inflammatory testimony presented by the state, and argument propounded by the prosecutor, which were p…1 / 2
-
Adams v. State, 449 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1984)…ce 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…
-
Adams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 709 F.2d 1443 (11th Cir. 1983)…. 878, 98 S.Ct. 232, 54 L.Ed.2d 158 (1977). The Florida Supreme Court later denied an application for relief based on the trial court’s alleged reliance on confidential and erroneous information during the penalty phase of the trial, Adams v. State, 355 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.1978), and the United States Supreme Court again denied certiorari. Adams v. Florida, 439 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 340, 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1978). When the Florida state courts denied any collateral relief, Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980), Adam…
Authorities Cited
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977)