The Commission on Capital Cases updates this information regularly. This information, however, is subject to change and may not reflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not be relied upon for statistical or legal purposes.
Holton, Rudolph (B/M)
DOB: 04/20/53
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Case # 86-8931A and 86-15176A
Sentencing Judge, Trial: The Honorable Harry Lee Coe, III
Attorney, Trial: Mina Morgan, Assistant Public Defender
Attorney, Direct Appeal: Douglas S. Connor, Assistant Public Defender
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Linda McDermott, CCRC-N/ Martin McClain, Special
Assistant CCRC-N
Date of Offense: 01/23/86
Date of Sentence: 12/05/86
Circumstances of Offense:
Rudolph Holton was convicted and sentenced to death for the 06/23/86 murder of Katrina Graddy.
The unclothed, partially burnt body of Katrina Graddy was found in a vacant burning crack house on 06/23/86. There was a piece of nylon cloth tied around her neck as well as around one wrist. A glass bottle was partially protruding from her anus. There were no traces of sperm found on the body. The investigation concluded that the fire had been intentionally started, but the victim died due to strangulation.
Carl Schenck was questioned after he was found sleeping in his truck directly across the street from the burning house where Graddy’s body was found. Schenck said that he had been parked there since approximately 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. the previous evening. He said that he had picked up a hitchhiker earlier and was waiting for the hitchhiker to return with marijuana. In the meantime, Schenck had fallen asleep, but was awakened when the fire engines arrived. The hitchhiker left a black shaving bag in Schenck’s car, which was admitted into evidence. While Schenck was unable to conclusively make a positive identification of Holton as the hitchhiker either by photographs or at trial, he did say that Holton looked a lot like the hitchhiker.
Johnny Lee Newsome said that he saw Holton with the victim on the night of the murder at approximately 11:00 p.m. Newsome stated that he recalled seeing Holton carrying a black shaving bag. A second witness said that she saw Holton go into the vacant house at 11:00 p.m. on the night of the murder. A third witness, Flemmie Birkins, an acquaintance of Holton’s for a number of years, was in jail serving time when the police arrested Holton. Flemmie testified that Holton confessed to having strangled a girl to death before setting fire to the house. Flemmie added that Holton told him that he did not intentionally kill the girl.
Holton told investigators that he was home at the time of the murder. Holton’s alibi was supported by Solodon “Red” Clemmons, who owned the house that Holton was living in at the time of the murder. Holton additionally claimed that the last time he had been to the vacant house was ten days before the murder. When investigators told Holton that they found his fingerprints on a cigarette pack found in the house, he admitted to having been in the house shooting drugs several days prior to the murder, but denied having been near the vacant house on the evening of the murder. Scratches on Holton’s chest were photographed along with a cut on his finger.
Three hairs were removed from the victim’s mouth at the medical examiner’s office. The only conclusive remarks that the expert could offer were that the hairs were from an African American, which included both the victim and the defendant. Additionally, one of the hairs was from one of three possible areas: the area immediately above the pubic area, from in between the anus and the lower pubic area, or from the nape of the neck.
The defense learned during the pretrial investigation that the victim reported being raped anally a week prior to the murder by a person who used a street name of “Pine.” The defense could not ascertain the true identity of “Pine” prior to the trial and proceeded without that information. During an evidentiary hearing several years after Holton’s conviction, the trial attorney was shown two police reports that were taken on the night of the alleged rape. One of the police reports confirmed that the victim had reported being raped, but withdrew the complaint. The second report showed that a David Pearson was questioned by police and arrested for obstruction by giving a false name (he gave the name of Donald Smith), even though the sexual battery charges were dropped by the victim. The trial attorney stated that had she had this information prior to proceeding with the trial, she could have pursued the connection between the incident with David Pearson (Pine) and the subsequent murder of the victim. Additionally, the defense presented the argument that Pearson’s criminal records indicated that Pearson carried a leather black pouch, which had a similar description to the shaving bag seized from Schneck’s car.
At trial, Flemmie testified that he was plea-bargaining down to 3 ½ to 4 ½ years. The defense attorney did not receive a copy of Flemmie’s prior criminal history, which she had requested, and after a subsequent state score sheet calculation error, Flemmie accepted a plea under minimum sentencing guidelines. The defense attorney was not privy to the relevant information because she did not have Flemmie’s criminal history, and, therefore, she could not verify the information herself. All three of the witnesses recanted their testimony, but at least one of the witnesses withdrew their recantations.
Based on Holton’s Brady Claim[1] and under a cumulative error review, the Circuit Court granted a new trial after vacating Holton’s convictions and sentences.
Trial Summary:
07/09/86 Defendant indicted on the following:
Count I: First-Degree Murder
Count II: Sexual Battery
Count III: Arson
12/05/86 The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts
12/17/86 The jury recommended that the defendant be sentenced to death by a vote
of 7-5
12/17/86 The defendant was sentenced as follows:
Count I: First-Degree Murder – Death
Count II: Sexual Battery – Life
Count III: Arson – 30 years
Prior Arrest History in Florida:
|
Date |
Location |
Offense |
Disposition |
|
9/8/1970 |
Hillsborough |
Assault |
Not Prosecuted |
|
9/24/1971 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary |
Not Prosecuted |
|
5/7/1972 |
Hillsborough |
Aggravated Assault with a Weapon |
Not Prosecuted |
|
5/7/1972 |
Hillsborough |
Larceny |
Not Prosecuted |
|
1/20/1975 |
Hillsborough |
Shoplifting |
Acquitted |
|
1/14/1977 |
Hillsborough |
Strongarm Rape |
Disposition Unknown |
|
1/14/1977 |
Hillsborough |
Grand Theft Auto |
Disposition Unknown |
|
1/5/1978 |
Hillsborough |
Larceny |
Disposition Unknown |
|
1/5/1978 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary |
Disposition Unknown |
|
1/5/1978 |
Hillsborough |
Robbery |
Disposition Unknown |
|
1/5/1978 |
Hillsborough |
Probation Violation |
Disposition Unknown |
|
7/28/1978 |
Hillsborough |
Aggravated Assault with a Weapon |
Disposition Unknown |
|
11/11/1978 |
Hillsborough |
Aggravated Assault with a Weapon |
Dismissed |
|
3/12/1979 |
Hillsborough |
Robbery with a Deadly Weapon |
2 Years |
|
9/3/1980 |
Hillsborough |
Grand Larceny |
6 Years |
|
5/8/1981 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary of an Unoccupied Structure |
1 Year |
|
10/6/1982 |
Hillsborough |
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol |
Disposition Unknown |
|
12/22/1982 |
Hillsborough |
Grand Theft |
1 Year |
|
2/15/1983 |
Hillsborough |
Grand Theft |
1 Year |
|
12/23/1983 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary of an Occupied Structure |
1 Year |
|
12/26/1983 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary of an Occupied Structure |
1 Year |
|
11/13/1984 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary |
Convicted |
|
11/13/1984 |
Hillsborough |
Larceny |
Convicted |
|
12/27/1984 |
Hillsborough |
Grand Theft Auto |
3 Years |
|
1/5/1985 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary of an Occupied Structure |
3 Years |
|
1/6/1985 |
Hillsborough |
Burglary of an Occupied Structure |
3 Years |
|
1/8/1985 |
Hillsborough |
Organizes Theft Property |
3 Years |
Appeal Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC# 69,861
573 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1990)
01/05/87 Appeal filed
09/27/90 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence
01/15/91 Rehearing granted in part; affirmed sentence of death, but FSC remanded
case for new sentence on other charges
United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Case # 90-7757
500 U.S. 960; 111 S. Ct. 2275; 114 L. Ed. 2d 726 (U.S. 1991)
04/16/91 Petition filed
06/03/91 Petition denied
State Circuit Court, Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850)
CC # 86-8931A & 86-15176A
07/21/92 Motion filed
01/29/99 Circuit Court vacated conviction and sentence and granted a new trial
Florida Supreme Court, Appeal of Order Vacating Judgment and Sentence
(Filed by the State)
FSC # 01-2671
12/04/01 Appeal filed
12/18/02 Affirmed the Circuit Court’s order
Case Information:
A Direct Appeal was filed with the Florida Supreme Court on 01/05/87. Issues that were raised on appeal included whether the defendant was denied a fair trial because of improper prejudicial comments during the state’s closing argument; whether the trial court erred in not granting a continuance until a key defense witness could be located to testify; and whether the death sentence should be overturned because the sentence was imposed on December 5, 1986, but the trial judge’s written findings are dated February 12, 1987, two months after sentencing and following certification of the record on February 6, 1987. The Florida Supreme Court found all of the errors either harmless or without error and affirmed the convictions and sentences on 09/27/90. The Florida Supreme Court granted the rehearing in part by affirming the penalty of death for the First-Degree Murder charge, but remanding the case for a new sentencing hearing on the other charges. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme Court on 04/16/91 and denied on 06/03/91.
A 3.850 Motion was filed with the state Circuit Court on 07/21/92. The Circuit Court granted an evidentiary hearing on several issues on 01/29/99, but also denied relief on numerous claims. On 08/03/00, the State admitted error in the improper preparation of Holton’s sentencing order and stipulated that Holton should have a new penalty phase. A third amended 3.850 Motion was filed on 01/08/01 in which the trial court entered an order that expanded the issues included in evidentiary hearing to include Holton’s Brady Claim. The Circuit Court granted the 3.850 on 11/02/01 and granted a new trial after vacating the convictions and sentences. The State filed an appeal of the Circuit Court order with the Florida Supreme Court on 12/04/01, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s order on 12/18/02. On 01/24/03, the State declined to prosecute Holton in a new trial.
Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:
Mark Ober, State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit, provided the following written statement:
In 1986, Rudolph Holton was convicted by a jury of his peers for the murder of Katrina Graddy, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Since that time, the trial court has ordered a new trial after an evidentiary hearing in 2001 where trial witnesses recanted their testimony and an alternative suspect was developed over a decade later.
The police detectives and the prosecutor handled the case ethically with the information they had at the time.
The real focus of my inquiry in January 2003 of the Holton case was to legally assess the case as it exists today. After an objective, impartial, and extremely detailed analysis of the evidence by senior members of my staff and myself, it became clear that the case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was a very complicated case and was carefully examined from all aspects. We could not proceed with a new trial because of the witness recantations, which are highly suspect, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the defense’s argument of an alternate suspect.
This office could not ethically proceed with the case because of those factors. However, it should be made abundantly clear that I am not saying that Rudolph Holton did not commit this crime. My stance is that the State of Florida can not prove the case against Mr. Holton beyond a reasonable doubt, and we do not have a reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction as the case exists today.
A request for a statement was made to the Tampa Police Department, but no comment has been received to date.
Defense Statements:
Linda McDermott, an attorney at CCRC-N, provided the following written statement:
I have been Mr. Holton’s primary counsel in his postconviction proceedings since 1997. Shortly after becoming involved in his case, I began to realize the strong possibility of his innocence. Through hard work, dedication, and the assistance of my colleagues at CCRC, we were able to transform that possibility into a reality.
Mr. Holton is innocent of the murder of Katrina Graddy. This conclusion has been echoed by many others who have taken a close look at this case. A news article recently reported that the original prosecutor who tried Mr. Holton’s case now believes he is innocent. During an oral argument which I conducted before the Florida Supreme Court, Justice Pariente stated that Mr. Holton’s case ‘comes close to one of the strongest cases of potential for actual innocence that [she] had seen.’
Remarkably, the Florida Supreme Court issued an order affirming the lower court’s granting of a new trial just six days after the oral argument. In my experience, a minimum of six months to one year often elapses prior to an opinion being issued by the Court.
________________________________________________________________________
Report Date: 02/18/03 cc
Approval Date: 02/27/03 ws
[1] Brady Claim – an error committed when the State fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense