The Commission on Capital Cases updates this information regularly

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 on for statistical or legal purposes.

VALLE, Manuel (H/M)

DC # 853220

DOB: 05/21/50

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case #78-5281-A

Sentencing Judge, Trial I: The Honorable Ellen J. Morphonios

Sentencing Judge, Trial II: The Honorable James R. Jorgenson

Sentencing Judge, Resentencing: The Honorable Norman S. Gerstein

Attorneys, Trial I: David Goodhart & Vance Carr

Attorneys, Trial II: Elliot Scherker & Leonard Rosenbaum – Assistant Public Defenders

Attorneys, Resentencing: Michael Zelman & Elliot Scherker – Assistant Public Defenders

Attorneys, Direct Appeal I: Elliot Scherker & Karen Gottlieb – Assistant Public Defenders

Attorney, Direct Appeal II: Michael Zelman – Assistant Public Defender

Attorneys, Direct Appeal, Resentencing: Louis Jepeway & Michael Mello

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Suzanne Myers – CCRC-S

Date of Offense: 04/02/78

Date of Sentencing, Trial I: 05/10/78

Date of Sentencing, Trial II: 08/04/81

Date of Resentencing: 03/16/88

Circumstances of Offense:

Manuel Valle was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Officer Louis Pena of the Coral Gables Police Department.

Officer Gary Spell, who was at the scene, recalled the following events at trial: On 04/02/78, Officer Louis Pena pulled over Manuel Valle and his codefendant, Felix Ruiz, for a traffic violation. Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Spell observed Valle sitting in the patrol car with Officer Pena. When Officer Pena initiated a registration check on the stolen car that Valle was driving, Valle exited the patrol car and walked back over to his own vehicle. Valle retrieved a gun from his car, returned to the patrol car, and fired one shot at Officer Pena, killing him. Valle then turned and fired two shots at Officer Spell before fleeing the scene. Valle was apprehended two days later in Deerfield Beach.

Codefendant Information:

Felix Ruiz

Codefendant Felix Ruiz was charged as an accessory after the fact and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on 06/20/78.

Prior Incarceration History in the State of Florida:

Offense Date	Offense	Sentence Date	County	Case No.	Prison Sentence Length
11/04/1971	FORGERY/UTTERING	04/25/1978	MIAMI-DADE	7109555	5Y 0M 0D
11/05/1971	FORGERY/UTTERING	04/25/1978	MIAMI-DADE	7109555	5Y 0M 0D

Trial I Summary:

04/04/78 Defendant arrested.

04/13/78 Defendant indicted on the following:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Count II: Attempted First-Degree Murder

Count III: Possession of a Firearm/Convicted Felon

Count IV: Grand Theft Auto

04/14/78 Defendant arraigned by the trial court of Dade County, 11th Circuit. The defendant stood mute, entering no plea. Valle later pled guilty to Count IV, Grand Theft Auto, for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

05/10/78 The jury found the defendant guilty on Counts I, II, & III.

05/10/78 The jury voted by majority for the death penalty.

05/10/78 At Trial I, the defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Count II: Attempted First-Degree Murder – 30 years

Count III: Possession of a Firearm/Convicted Felon – 15 years

02/26/81 The Florida Supreme Court reversed Valle’s convictions and sentence and remanded for a new trial.

Trial II Summary:

07/31/81 At Trial II, Valle was convicted on all counts charged in the indictment.

08/01/81 The jury, by a 9 to 3 majority, voted for the death penalty.

08/04/81 At Trial II, the defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Count II: Attempted First-Degree Murder – 30 years

Count III: Possession of a Firearm/Convicted Felon – 5 years

01/05/87 The Florida Supreme Court remanded for resentencing before a new jury.

Resentencing Summary:

02/29/88 The jury, by an 8 to 4 majority, voted for the death penalty.

03/16/88 The defendant was resentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Count II: Attempted First-Degree Murder – 30 years

Count III: Possession of a Firearm/Convicted Felon – 5 years

Appeal Summary:

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (Trial I)

FSC #54,572

394 So. 2d 1004

07/07/78 Appeal filed.

02/26/81 FSC reversed Valle’s convictions and sentence and remanded for a new trial.

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (Trial II)

FSC #61,176

474 So. 2d 796

09/23/81 Appeal filed.

07/11/85 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence of death.

09/17/85 Rehearing denied.

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC #85-6063

476 U.S. 1102

12/06/85 Petition filed.

05/05/86 Certiorari granted in light of Skipper v. South Carolina, regarding the admissibility of model prisoner testimony.

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (On Remand from USSC)

FSC #61,176

502 So. 2d 1225

05/05/86 Certiorari granted by the USSC and remanded to the FSC.

01/05/87 FSC reversed the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing before a new jury.

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (Resentencing)

FSC #72,328

581 So. 2d 40

04/27/88 Appeal filed.

05/02/91 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence of death.

07/05/91 Rehearing denied.

08/05/91 Mandate issued.

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC #91-5974

502 U.S. 986

10/01/91 Petition filed.

12/02/91 Petition denied.

State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion (I)

CC #78-5281

04/05/93 Motion filed.

08/19/93 Motion dismissed without prejudice in order to file a legally sufficient motion.

State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion (II)

CC #78-5281

12/01/93 Motion filed.

08/31/94 Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal

FSC #88,203

705 So. 2d 1331

06/07/96 Appeal filed.

12/11/97 FSC affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded Valle’s 3.850 Motion to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing regarding Valle’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion (On Remand from FSC)

CC #78-5281

12/11/97 FSC remanded the motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding Valle’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

10/19/98 Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal

FSC #94,754

778 So. 2d 960

01/25/99 Appeal filed.

01/18/01 FSC affirmed the denial of Valle’s 3.850 Motion.

03/12/01 Rehearing denied.

04/17/01 Mandate issued.

Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC #01-2865

837 So. 2d 905

12/31/01 Petition filed.

08/29/02 Petition denied.

11/12/02 Rehearing denied.

Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC #03-298

859 So.2d 516

02/19/03 Petition filed.

06/24/03 Petition denied.

10/15/03 Rehearing denied.

United States District Court, Southern District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC# 03-20387

02/21/03 Petition filed.

09/13/05 Petition denied.

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC #03-8609

124 S. Ct. 1720

01/13/04 Petition filed.

03/29/04 Petition denied.

United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Habeas Appeal

USCA# 05-15724

459 F. 3d 1206

10/11/05 Appeal filed.

08/11/06 USCA affirmed the denial of the petition.

02/27/07 Mandate issued.

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 07-5505

459 F.3d 1206

07/16/07 Petition filed.

10/01/07 Petition denied.

Factors Contributing to the Delay in the Imposition of the Sentence:

The execution of Valle’s death sentence has been delayed by the numerous remands in his appellate history. His case was first remanded for retrial following a three-year Direct Appeal. Following his retrial and the affirmation of his convictions and sentence by the Florida Supreme Court during his Direct Appeal, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Florida Supreme Court then remanded the case for resentencing before a new jury in 1987. In 1997, 10 years later, the State Circuit Court denied Valle’s second 3.850 Motion; however, the Florida Supreme Court remanded the motion on appeal for an evidentiary hearing regarding Valle’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Case Information:

Manuel Valle filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 07/07/78. In that appeal he argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated by the expedited nature of his trial. Valle contended that his right to adequate preparation time and right to effective assistance of counsel were violated when his case went to trial only 24 days after his arraignment. Florida Supreme Court agreed and stated:

We find that requiring this appellant to go to trial within twenty-four days after arraignment resulted in a denial of effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel, even though diligent, had no opportunity to make proper inquiry into the appellant’s mental condition or to despose twenty-four of that fifty-nine witnesses named by the state pursuant to the Florida criminal discovery rules.

The Florida Supreme Court also found that the trial judge’s decision to allow Valle’s case to proceed so hurriedly was an abuse of discretion. As such, the high court reversed the convictions and sentence of death, and remanded for a retrial.

Valle was again convicted of the murder of Officer Louis Pena and sentenced to death on 08/04/81. He filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court arguing that his confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, that the trial court erred in allowing under-representation of minorities in the jury selection and that a mistrial should have been granted when the prosecutor for the State prejudicially commented on Valle’s right to remain silent. Regarding the penalty phase of the trial, Valle contended that the trial judge erred in excusing a prospective juror for cause and that the court erred in allowing the prosecutor for the State to make improper comments during closing arguments. Valle also challenged the instruction, consideration, and application of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in his case. Specifically, Valle argued that the trial court erred in omitting mitigating evidence that he would be a model prisoner if spared the death penalty. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Valle’s convictions and sentence of death on 07/11/85.

Valle then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was granted on 05/05/86. The Supreme Court vacated the death sentence and remanded to the Florida Supreme Court for further consideration of Valle’s case under the dictates of Skipper v. Carolina [1].

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court found that testimony regarding Valle’s potential future behavior as a model prisoner should have been considered by the jury during the penalty phase of the trial. As such, the Florida Supreme Court remanded for resentencing before a new jury on 01/05/87.

Valle was resentenced to death on 03/16/88, after which he filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, he argued the improper cross-examination of defense experts who were testifying as to Valle’s prison behavior. The defense’s presentation of Skipper testimony regarding the admissibility of model prison behavior, gave the prosecution the opportunity to scrutinize Valle’s prison behavior on cross-examination. Valle also challenged the application of the aggravating factor that the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in his official duties and the application of the cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP) aggravating factor. He also argued that the prosecutor improperly presented victim impact evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Valle’s death sentence on 05/02/91

Valle then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 12/02/91.

Valle next filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850) in the State Circuit Court, which was subsequently dismissed without prejudice in order to file a legally sufficient motion. Valle then filed a second 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court, which argued 20 claims. Following a Huff hearing, the judge denied Valle’s 3.850 Motion without an evidentiary hearing. He steadfastly filed an appeal of that decision in the Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, Valle claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Valle argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for the disqualification of his resentencing judge. Judge Norman Gerstein allegedly kissed the victim’s widow in an offer of sympathy and fraternized with the victim’s friends in front of the jury. Valle also contended that his counsel was ineffective for presenting Skipper evidence during his resentencing proceedings, which allowed the State to bring up that Valle had attempted an escape from prison between the time his death sentence was reversed and the resentencing. Valle claimed that his counsel erroneously presented the Skipper evidence because they thought they had to, since his earlier sentence reversal was based on the exclusion of such evidence. Valle contended that without the defense’s presentation of the Skipper evidence, the State would have been unable to present rebuttal evidence of his escape attempt, and the jury may not have recommended death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Valle’s 3.850 Motion in part, reversed the denial in part, and remanded to the State Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing on Valle’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Following an evidentiary hearing on Valle’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the State Circuit Court again denied his 3.850 Motion. Valle then filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. The high court noted that Valle’s defense did know that they were not required to present Skipper evidence. They chose to present evidence of present non-violent prison behavior, instead of past or future behavior as a tactical move in the hopes of preventing the State from presenting rebuttal evidence about Valle’s past prison misconduct. As such, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Valle’s 3.850 Motion.

Valle next filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court on 12/31/01, which was denied on 08/29/02.

Valle filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court on 02/19/03, which was denied on 06/24/03. Rehearing was denied on 10/15/03.

On 02/21/03, Valle filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the United States District Court, Southern District. The petition was denied on 09/13/05

Valle filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on 01/13/04. The petition was denied on 03/29/04.

On 10/11/05, Valle filed a Habeas Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. The USCA affirmed the denial of Valle’s Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus on 08/11/06, and a mandate was issued on 02/27/07.

On 07/16/07, Valle filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. This petition was denied on 10/01/07.

Institutional Adjustment:

DATE DAYS VIOLATION LOCATION

-------- ---- ---------------------------- -------------------

10/14/80 0 DEST. OF ST. PROP. N.F.R.C.- MAIN UNIT

12/14/80 30 DISOBEYING ORDER N.F.R.C.- MAIN UNIT

02/08/83 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT CENTRAL OFFICE

05/07/83 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT FSP - WORK CAMP

07/18/84 90 ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT FSP - WORK CAMP

11/12/84 15 POSS OF NEGOTIABLES FSP

06/10/86 15 DISORDERLY CONDUCT FSP

01/13/87 180 POSS OF ESCAPE PARA. FSP

11/17/90 15 MISUSE OF STATE PROP FSP

________________________________________________________________________

Report Date: 04/11/02 EW

Updated: 01/22/09 AEH

[1] Skipper v. South Carolina – United States Supreme Court decision that found evidence of probable future prison conduct to be relevant in death penalty sentencing proceedings.