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
OcchiconeDominick 226426CCRC-MCase Summary

Last Action

DateCourtCase NumberLast Action
5/3/2005USCA05-12502Habeas appeal filed

Current Attorney


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 thisinformation regularly. This information, however, is subject to change and maynot reflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not be relied uponfor statistical or legal purposes.


OCCHICONE, Dominick Anthony (W/M)

DC#    226426

DOB:  08/29/45


Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pasco County Case# 86-1355

Sentencing Judge:  The Honorable Lawrence E. Keough

Attorneys, Trial:  Bruce S. Boyer – Private

Attorney, Direct Appeal:  Douglas S. Conner – AssistantPublic Defender

Attorneys, Collateral Appeals:  Peter Cannon &Daphney E. Gaylord – CCRC-M


Date of Offense:  06/10/86

Date of Sentence:  11/09/87


Circumstances of the Offense:


Dominick Occhicone awoke his former girlfriend, AnitaGerrety, in the early morning hours of 06/10/86, by knocking on the slidingglass door to the bedroom of her house. She shared this house with her childrenas well as her parents, Raymond and Martha Artzner.  Occhicone left whenGerrety refused to speak to him, but returned an hour or so later armed with ahandgun.  Occhicone cut the exterior telephone wires and proceeded to wakethe household.  When Raymond Artzner, Gerrety’s father, went outside toconfront him, Occhicone shot him.  Occhicone proceeded to break into thehouse through a locked door while Gerrety and her daughter were attempting toflee from the house.  Once he gained entrance into the house, he shotGerrety’s mother, Martha Artzner, four times.


Trial Summary:


07/15/86         Indicted as follows:

                                   Count I:          First-Degree Murder (Raymond Artzner)

                                   Count II:         First-Degree Murder(Martha Artzner)

09/18/87         Jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts of the indictment

09/22/87         Jury recommended death by a vote of 7-5

11/09/87         Sentenced as follows:

                                   Count I:          First-Degree Murder (Raymond Artzner) – Life

                                   Count II:         First-Degree Murder(Martha Artzner) – Death


Appeal Summary:


Florida State Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 71,505

570 So. 2d 902


11/25/87         Appeal filed

10/11/90         FSC affirmed conviction and death sentence

10/24/90         Motion for rehearing filed

12/26/90         Rehearing denied

01/25/91         Mandate issued


United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC# 90-7541

500 U.S. 938


03/22/91         Petition filed

05/20/91         Petition denied


Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus

FSC# 80,234

618 So. 2d 730


07/30/92         Petition filed

04/08/93         Petition denied

06/07/93         Rehearing denied


State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC# 86-1355


05/20/93         Motion filed

05/18/98         Motion denied


Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal

FSC# 93,343

768 So. 2d 1037


06/30/98         Appeal filed

06/29/00         FSC affirmed the trial court’s denial of 3.850 motion

10/10/00         Rehearing denied

11/13/00         Mandate issued

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

USDC# 01-2136


11/13/01         Petition filed

03/31/03         Petition granted in part and denied in part

03/31/05         Petition denied


United States Court of Appeals – Habeas Appeal

USCA# 05-12502

455 F.3d 1306


05/03/05         Appeal filed

07/14/06         USCA affirmed the USDC’s denial of Occhicone’s Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus


United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC# 06-7160

127 S.Ct. 944


10/12/06         Petition filed

01/08/07         Petition denied


Factors Contributing to the Delay in Imposition ofSentence:


It took over three years for Occhicone’s direct appeal to bedecided by the Florida Supreme Court.  It took five years for the CircuitCourt to render a decision on Occhicone’s 3.850 motion. 


Case Information:


Occhicone filed a Direct Appeal to the Florida Supreme Courton 11/25/87.  Issues that were raised included whether the trial courterred in not granting his motion for mistrial based on a spectator’s allegedmisconduct, and whether or not the prosecutor’s comment on his refusal to takethe hand swab test constituted penalizing him for exercising his post-Mirandarights.  The Florida Supreme Court found all of the claims either withoutmerit or harmless.  The Court affirmed the conviction and death sentenceon 10/11/90.


Occhicone filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to theFlorida Supreme Court on 03/22/91, which was denied on 05/20/91.


Occhicone filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to theFlorida Supreme Court on 07/30/92, which was denied on 06/07/93.


Occhicone filed a 3.850 Motion to the Circuit Court on05/20/93, which was denied on 05/18/98. 


Occhicone filed a 3.850 Appeal to the Florida Supreme Courton 06/30/98.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the 3.850Motion on 06/29/00.  Issues that were raised included whether or notcounsel provided ineffective assistance during both the guilt phase and thepenalty phase.  The Court denied all claims.


Occhicone filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to theUnited States District Court, Middle District, on 11/13/01.  On 03/31/03,the petition was granted in part and denied in part.  The Court concludedthat most of Occhicone’s claims were procedurally barred from review.


On 05/03/05, Occhicone filed a Habeas Appeal to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals.  The issue in this case involved an allegedviolation of Giglio focusing on the testimony of Baker, Occhicone’s cellmate injail, after the murders of the Artners.  The Giglio issue in this caseinvolved the agreement between the prosecution attorneys and Baker to testifyagainst Occhicone in exchange for the prosecution’s recommendation that Bakerreceive probation on his grand theft charge.  In light of the totality ofevidence, the USCA concluded that there is no reasonable likelihood that theState’s failure to correct the untruthful testimony of Baker could haveaffected the judgment of the jury.  On 07/14/06, the USCA affirmed theUSDC’s denial of Occhicone’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 


On 10/12/06, Occhicone filed a Petition for Writ ofCertiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 01/08/07.


Institutional Adjustment:













Report Date:  10/12/01          CC

Approved:      10/25/01          WS

Updated:        04/22/09          AEH