The Commission on Capital Cases updates thisinformation regularly.  This information, however, is subject to changeand may not reflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not berelied upon for statistical or legal purposes. 

DAMREN, Floyd (W/M)

DC#     061360

DOB:   05/27/51

­­­Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County Case # 94-537

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert Foster

Attorney, Trial: Alan Chipperfield – Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Teresa Sopp – Private

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: John Mills (Federal)- Private

Date of Offense:          05/01/94

Date of Sentence:        06/02/95

Circumstances of Offense:

Floyd Damren entered the grounds of R.G.C. Mineral Sands andstole equipment, telling a friend that “There [is] … some more good stuff downthere I’d like to get.” 

Several weeks later, on 05/01/94, after drinking beer withfriends, Damren returned with an accomplice, Jeff Chittam, to steal moreequipment.  The two burglarized the electrical shop in the maintenancebarn.  Chittam was discovered by an employee, Don Miller, but Damrensneaked up behind Miller and struck him with a steel pipe.  Miller andChittam both pleaded for Damren to spare Miller’s life, but after pacing thefloor, Damren bludgeoned Miller to death with the steel pipe, striking himseven times on the head and four times on the body. 

As Damren was dragging Miller’s body across the floor,Michael Knight, the shift supervisor, entered the building and yelled atDamren.  Knight was acquainted with Damren due to the fact that he hadlived in Knight’s neighborhood since childhood.  Damren threatened Knightwith the pipe, and Knight ran yelling from the building. 

Knight identified Damren to the police and Damren wasarrested.   Further evidence linking Damren to the crime includedtestimony from several witnesses that Damren made incriminating statements tothem about the murder.  Also, blood stains on Damren’s pants matchedMiller’s blood. 

At the time of the murder, Damren had an extensive criminalrecord.  The following is Damren’s prior prison history, covering periodsof incarceration with the Florida Department of Corrections.

 Codefendant Information:

Chittam was not charged and did not testify at trial. He was the victim of a separate homicide, for which Damren was also charged,convicted, and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment (Case# 95-1305). 

Prior Incarceration History in the State of Florida:

Trial Summary:

05/10/94         Indicted on the following charges:

                       Count I First-Degree Murder

                       CountII           Armed Burglary

                       CountIII          Aggravated Assault

05/17/95         Jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts of the indictment

05/18/95         Jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of 12-0

05/25/95         Sentenced as follows:

                       Count IFirst-Degree Murder – Death

                       CountII           Armed Burglary –Life imprisonment

                       CountIII          Aggravated Assault –10 years

Appeal Summary:

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 86,003

696 So. 2d 709

05/17/96         Appeal filed

05/08/97         FSC affirmed convictions and sentences

07/08/97         Rehearing denied

08/07/97         Mandate issued

U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC# 97-6428

522 U.S. 1054

10/06/97         Petition filed

01/12/98         USSC denied petition

Circuit Court – 3.851 Motion

CC# 94-537

11/18/98         Motion filed

06/20/01         Circuit Court denied motion

Florida Supreme Court – 3.851 Motion Appeal

FSC# 01-1469

838 So. 2d 512

07/05/01         Appeal filed

01/23/03         FSC affirmed denial of the motion

02/24/03         Mandate issued

Florida Supreme Court – Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC# 01-2808

838 So. 2d 512

12/19/01         Petition filed

01/23/03         FSC denied petition

02/24/03         Mandate issued

U.S. District Court, Middle District – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus

USDC# 03-397

452 F. Supp 2d 1203

(Pending)

04/20/04          Petition filed

01/21/09          USDC dismissed the petition

07/08/10          Order dismissing habeas petition vacatedand remanded from the USCA

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

USCA# 09-10965

02/19/09          Appeal filed

07/08/10          Vacated order dismissing habeas petitionand remanded to the USDC

Case Information:

On 05/17/96, Damren filed a Direct Appeal with the FloridaSupreme Court, citing the following trial court errors:  admission ofsimilar-fact evidence; failure to give adequate jury instruction; overrulingDamren’s objection to prosecutor comments; admission of victim impact evidence;admission of Chittam’s hearsay statements; finding that the murder was heinous,atrocious, or cruel and cold, calculated, and premeditated; failure to findcertain mitigation; and imposing a sentence that is disproportionate comparedto other crimes. On 05/08/97, the FSC affirmed Damren’s convictions andsentences.

On 10/06/97, Damren filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorariwith the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on 01/12/98.

On 11/18/98, Damren filed a 3.851 Motion with the CircuitCourt, which was denied on 06/20/01.

On 07/05/01, Damren filed a 3.851 Motion Appeal with theFlorida Supreme Court, citing ineffective assistance of counsel.  The FSCaffirmed the denial of the 3.851 Motion on 01/23/03. 

On 12/19/01, Damren filed a Petition Writ of Habeas Corpuswith the Florida Supreme Court, citing issues of ineffective assistance ofcounsel; improper admission of hearsay statements; and vagueness of theheinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance.  On 01/23/03, theFSC denied the Habeas Petition.

On 04/20/04, Damren filed a Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus with the U.S. District Court, Middle District, which was dismissed withprejudice on 01/21/09. On 02/19/09, Damren filed a Habeas Appeal with the U.S.Court of Appeals. On 07/08/10, the USCA vacated the USDC order dismissing thehabeas petition and remanded the case to allow the USDC to reconsider itsdecision in light of Holland v. Florida. The case is pending in the USDC.

________________________________________________________________________

Report Date:   03/31/03          JFL

Approved:       04/01/03          WS

Updated:         08/02/10          KKR