The Commission on Capital Cases was not funded in the FY 2011-2012 General Appropriations Act, and the Commission ceased operations on June 30, 2011. This site and the Commission website are being retained to provide access to historical materials.

The Registry Attorneys will be continued by the Justice Administration Commission.

These actions are effective July 1, 2011.

Disclaimer: The Commission on Capital Cases receives this information from a variety of sources. The site will be updated consistently as information is received and will be audited bi-annually. We make every attempt to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, the information should be verified by the applicable court prior to using it for legal or statistical purposes.


Last NameFirst NamePictureDC NumberAgencyCase Summary
ConsalvoRobert 941687RegistryCase Summary

Last Action

DateCourtCase NumberLast Action
8/7/2006USDC06-61179Habeas petition
4/21/2009USDC06-61179Petition amended
11/19/2009USDC06-61179Petition denied
4/7/2010USDC06-61179COA granted in part, denied in part
12/13/2006USSC06-8769Certiorari filed
3/19/2007USSC06-8769Certiorari Denied
11/19/2007FSC07-21753.853 Appeal
7/22/2008FSC07-2175Initial brief
2/12/2009FSC07-2175Motion for rehearing
2/25/2009FSC07-2175Rehearing denied
3/13/2009FSC07-2175Mandate issued
4/24/2009USSC08-10496Certiorari petition
10/5/2009USSC08-10496Cert denied
2/17/2010USCA10-10533Habeas Appeal
12/20/2007CC9119140Status Conference

Current Attorney

Last NameFirst NameCityAddressZipPhoneEMail
Still, IIIIra W.Coral Springs, FL148 S.W. 97th Ter.33071-7356954/573-4412Email


Last NameCase NumberJudgeCountyCCRCOrder DateContract Date
Still, III91-1940RossBrowardSouth7/27/19988/26/1998

Last Updated

2008-01-09 11:43:13.0

Case Summary
Direct Links

The Commission on Capital Cases updates this information regularly

The Commission on Capital Cases updates this informationregularly.  This information, however, is subject to change and may notreflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not be relied on forstatistical or legal purposes.


CONSALVO, Robert (W/M)

DC #    941687

DOB:   05/25/62 


Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case #91-19140

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Howard M. Zeidwig 

Trial Attorney:  Jeffrey Alan Glass  

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Jeffrey L. Anderson – AssistantPublic Defender 

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Ira Still – Registry


Date of Offense:          09/27/91     

Date of Sentence:        11/17/93         


Circumstances of Offense:


Robert Consalvo was convicted and sentenced to death for themurder of Lorraine Pezza that occurred on 09/27/91.


On the evening of 09/21/91, Lorraine Pezza went to anautomatic teller machine (ATM) with her neighbor, Robert Consalvo.  Pezzawithdrew $200, putting $60 in her wallet and placing the other $140 in herglove compartment.  The two returned to Pezza’s apartment, and about anhour later, Pezza realized she had left her $140 in the car.  Pezzasearched for her car keys, but was unable to find them.  Relying on aspare key, Pezza unlocked her car and discovered that her money wasmissing.  She called police, and when they arrived, they questionedConsalvo.  He denied having any part in the missing keys or money. When the police and Consalvo left, however, Pezza phoned the police asking themto return.  Pezza expressed that she felt Consalvo stole the money, butthat she was afraid to voice her suspicions earlier with him present. Pezza also inquired as to how she could press charges against him.


On 09/27/91, Pezza hired a locksmith to change the locks onher doors, mailbox and car.  He was the last person to see heralive.  On the same day, Consalvo was seen using Pezza’s ATM card, asdocumented by the teller’s security camera.  Consalvo was also recognizeddriving a car that looked like Pezza’s.


On 10/03/91, Consalvo was spotted breaking into theapartment of Myrna Walker, the downstairs neighbor of Lorraine Pezza.  Policewere called to the scene and Consalvo was apprehended.  Upon searchingConsalvo, police found Pezza’s checkbook in his possession. 


One of the detectives attempted to speak with Pezzaregarding the stolen checkbook, but there was no answer at her door.  Heleft his card lodged in her doorway, instructing her to call him when she gotin.  When friends and family began to worry about her disappearance, andpolice noticed the detective’s card still lodged in her doorway, they brokeinto Pezza’s apartment.  Pezza’s body was found decomposing in herapartment.  The cause of death was determined to be several stab wounds,the fatal wound being inflicted to the left side of her chest.  Medicalexaminers determined that Pezza had been killed three to seven days before herbody was found.


While in custody for the burglary of the Walker residence,Consalvo made several incriminating statements implicating himself in Pezza’smurder.  He confessed to his mother that he was involved in a murderduring a telephone conversation, and he allegedly told a fellow inmate in thathe killed Pezza after she caught him breaking into her apartment.  Whensearching Consalvo’s apartment, investigators found a towel with blood on itthat matched Pezza’s


Additional Information:


Consalvo was convicted and sentenced to three yearscommunity supervision for an additional burglary that he committed in 1986.


Trial Summary:


10/23/91         Defendant indicted on:

                                   Count I:            First-DegreeMurder

                                   Count II:           Armed Burglary

02/11/93         The jury found the defendant guilty on both counts.

03/25/93         Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by an 11 to 1 majority, voted for the deathpenalty.

11/17/93         The defendant was sentenced as followed:

                                   Count I:           First-Degree Murder - Death

                                   Count II:           Armed Burglary- Life


Appeal Summary:


Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 82,780

697 So. 2d 805


11/29/93         Appeal filed.

10/03/96         FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence of death.

07/17/97         Rehearing denied.

11/17/97         Mandate issued.


U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 97-8148

523 U.S. 1109


03/04/98         Petition filed.

05/04/98         Petition denied.


Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC# 91-19140


04/09/99         Motion filed.

03/07/01         Amended motion filed.

02/19/04         Motion denied.


Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal

FSC# SC04-520

937 So. 2d 555


03/26/04         Appeal filed.

05/18/06         FSC affirmed denial of the motion.

09/15/06         Mandate issued.


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

USDC# 06-61179


08/07/06         Petition filed.

04/21/09         Petition amended.

11/19/09         Petition denied.

04/07/10          COA granted in part, denied in part


United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC# 06-8769

127 U.S. 1821


12/13/06         Petition filed.

03/19/07         USSC denied petition.


Circuit Court – 3.853 Motion

CC# 91-19140


02/21/07         Motion filed.

10/18/07         Motion denied.


Florida Supreme Court – 3.853 Appeal

FSC# 07-2175

3 So. 3d 1014


11/13/07         Appeal filed.

01/29/09         Appeal denied.


United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC# 08-10496

130 S.Ct. 99


04/24/09          Petition filed.

10/05/09          Petition denied.


United States Court of Appeals – Habeas Appeal

USCA# 10-10533


02/17/10          Appeal filed. 


Factors Contributing to the Delay in the Imposition ofthe Sentence:


Consalvo’s Direct Appeal took approximately three years toresolve.  He filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court on 04/09/99,which was pending for nearly five years.


Case Information:


On 11/29/93, Consalvo filed a Direct Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court.  In that appeal, he argued that the prosecution madeseveral discovery violations and that during their closing argument, theyimproperly executed a “straw man” defense[1].  Consalvo alsocontended that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury thatunexplained possession of stolen property could justify a burglaryconviction.  In regard to the penalty phase, Consalvo asserted that victimimpact evidence was improperly admitted, that his due process rights wereviolated in the sentencing order and that the court erred in its considerationof non-statutory mitigating evidence.  He also argued the application ofthe “avoid arrest” aggravating factor.  The Florida Supreme Court affirmedthe convictions and sentence of death on 10/03/96.


Consalvo next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theU.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on 05/04/98.


Consalvo filed a 3.850 Motion in the Circuit Court on04/09/99, which was denied on 02/19/04. 


Consalvo filed an appeal of the denial of the motion in theFlorida Supreme Court, raising evidentiary issues.  On 05/18/06, the FSCaffirmed the denial of the motion. 


Consalvo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in theUnited States District Court on 08/07/06 that was denied on 11/19/09. On04/07/10, a Certificate of Appealability was granted in part and denied inpart.


Consalvo filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court on 12/13/06 that was denied on 03/19/07.


Consalvo filed a 3.853 Motion in the Circuit Court on02/21/07 that was denied on 10/18/07.


Consalvo filed a 3.853 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Courton 11/13/07 that was denied on 01/29/09.


Consalvo filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court on 04/24/09 that was denied on 10/05/09.


Consalvo filed a Habeas Appeal in the United States Court ofAppeals in 02/17/10, which is pending.


Institutional Adjustment: ROBERT CONSALVO DC#941687


DATE            DAYS             VIOLATION                                     LOCATION     

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

05/24/94          0                    POSS OF UNAUTHBEV.                UNION C. I.       

08/07/98         0                    POSS OF CONTRABAND               UNION C. I.       

06/01/05         30                  POSS OFCONTRABAND               UNION C.I.



01/23/01 – ew

01/30/02 – approved – ws

04/13/10 – updated – kkr

[1] A “straw man” defense is one in whichthe prosecutor sets up a plausible defense for the sole purpose of refuting it.