No. 24-7117

Jeffrey Hutchinson v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-05-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: competency-to-execute death-penalty due-process eighth-amendment mental-health panetti-standard
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Panetti standard for competency to be executed require more than a mere rational understanding of the physical fact of execution, and must it account for a petitioner's subjective understanding of the reason for their execution?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Jeffrey Glenn Hutchinson, a decorated combat veteran, returned from the front lines of the Gulf War plagued by persecutory delusions about a government conspiracy to silence his knowledge of military secrets and advocacy related to Gulf War Illness. From his first contact with law enforcement, Mr. Hutchinson attributed the commission of the crimes to the government. His belief that the government is responsible for killing his girlfriend and her children has persisted without wavering for nearly 30 ye ars. Mr. Hutchinson does not believe that he will die for crimes he committed, but instead, that the government conspiracy is responsible for his death sentences, and if this Court does not intervene, will lead to his execution. Based upon the standard set forth by this Court in Panetti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930, 952 (2007), Mr. Hutchinson is incompetent to be executed. Florida’s continued rejection of the correct application of Panetti violates the long -held principle that the execution of the insane violates the Eighth Amendment. Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399, 401, 410 (1986). Mr. Hutchinson requests that his execution be stayed, and certiorari be granted to address the following questions: 1. Does a finding of competency because a petitioner has a “rational understanding of the fact of his pending execution and the reason for it[,]” solely because he is “aware that the State is executing him for the murders that were committed and that he will physically die as a result of the execution[,]” run afoul of the Panetti rational understanding standard? 2. Does the Panetti standard account for a petitioner’s subjective understanding of the reason for their execution as opposed to their ability to coherently explain the State’s reason for carrying out the execution? ii LIST OF DIRECTLY

Docket Entries

2025-05-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
2025-05-01
Application (24A1057) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Thomas.
2025-05-01
Amicus brief of Mental Health Advocaces submitted.
2025-05-01
Brief of Ricky Dixon in opposition submitted.
2025-05-01
Reply of Jeffrey Hutchinson submitted.
2025-05-01
Petition DENIED.
2025-05-01
Application (24A1057) referred to the Court.
2025-05-01
Application (24A1057) for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
2025-05-01
Brief of respondent Ricky Dixon in opposition filed.
2025-05-01
Reply of petitioner Jeffrey Hutchinson filed.

Attorneys

Jeffrey Hutchinson
Sean Talmage GunnFederal Public Defender, N.D. Fla., Petitioner
Mental Health Advocaces
John Robert MillsPhillips Black, Inc. , Amicus
Ricky Dixon
Carla Suzanne BechardOffice of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondent