No. 24-6172
IFP
Tags: arbitrary-capricious capital-sentencing death-penalty eighth-amendment fourteenth-amendment proportionality-review
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment
Latest Conference:
2025-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Has the Florida Supreme Court misapplied Pulley v. Harris and rendered Florida's capital sentencing scheme unconstitutional by abandoning comparative proportionality review?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Has the Florida Supreme Court by abandoning comparative proportionality review in death penalty appeals while dismantling other safeguards, and in view of the proliferation of additional statutory aggravating factors (to the point where nearly all first-degree murder defendants are death-eligible) misapplied this Court’s decision in Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 387 (1984) and rendered Florida’s capital sentencing scheme arbitrary, capricious, unreliable, and violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? i STATEMENT OF
Docket Entries
2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-23
Reply of Tyrone Johnson submitted.
2025-01-23
Reply of petitioner Tyrone Johnson filed. (Distributed)
2025-01-16
Brief of State of Florida in opposition submitted.
2025-01-16
Brief of respondent State of Florida in opposition filed.
2025-01-16
Brief of respondent Florida in opposition filed.
2024-12-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 17, 2025)
Attorneys
State of Florida
Tyrone Johnson
Steven L. Bolotin — Office of the Public Defender, Petitioner
Steven L. Bolotin — Office of the Public Defender, Petitioner