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 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 & ElliotScherker – Assistant Public Defenders
Attorneys, Direct Appeal I: Elliot Scherker & KarenGottlieb – Assistant Public Defenders
Attorney, Direct Appeal II: Michael Zelman – AssistantPublic 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 themurder of Officer Louis Pena of the Coral Gables Police Department.
Officer Gary Spell, who was at the scene, recalled thefollowing events at trial: On 04/02/78, Officer Louis Pena pulled overManuel Valle and his codefendant, Felix Ruiz, for a traffic violation. Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Spell observed Valle sitting in the patrolcar with Officer Pena. When Officer Pena initiated a registration checkon the stolen car that Valle was driving, Valle exited the patrol car andwalked 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 thescene. Valle was apprehended two days later in DeerfieldBeach.
Codefendant Information:
Felix Ruiz
Codefendant Felix Ruiz was charged as an accessory after thefact 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:
CountI: First-DegreeMurder
CountII: Attempted First-DegreeMurder
CountIII: Possession of aFirearm/Convicted Felon
CountIV: Grand Theft Auto
04/14/78 Defendant arraigned by the trial court of Dade County, 11th Circuit. The defendantstood mute, entering no plea. Valle later pled guilty to Count IV, Grand TheftAuto, 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:
CountI: First-DegreeMurder - Death
Count II: AttemptedFirst-Degree Murder – 30 years
Count III: Possession ofa Firearm/Convicted Felon – 15 years
02/26/81 The Florida Supreme Court reversed Valle’s convictions and sentence and remandedfor 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:
CountI: First-DegreeMurder - Death
Count II: AttemptedFirst-Degree Murder – 30 years
Count III: Possession ofa 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:
CountI: First-DegreeMurder - Death
Count II: AttemptedFirst-Degree Murder – 30 years
Count III: Possession ofa 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 ofCertiorari
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 admissibilityof model prisoner testimony.
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (On Remand fromUSSC)
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 hearingbefore 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 ofCertiorari
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 tothe trial court for an evidentiary hearing regarding Valle’s claim ofineffective assistance of counsel.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion (On Remand fromFSC)
CC #78-5281
12/11/97 FSC remanded the motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding Valle’s claim ofineffective 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 HabeasCorpus
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 HabeasCorpus
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 ofCertiorari
USSC #03-8609
124 S. Ct. 1720
01/13/04 Petition filed.
03/29/04 Petition denied.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – HabeasAppeal
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 ofCertiorari
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 ofthe Sentence:
The execution of Valle’s death sentence has been delayed bythe numerous remands in his appellate history. His case was firstremanded for retrial following a three-year Direct Appeal. Following hisretrial and the affirmation of his convictions and sentence by the Florida SupremeCourt during his Direct Appeal, the United States Supreme Court grantedcertiorari. The Florida Supreme Court then remanded the case forresentencing before a new jury in 1987. In 1997, 10 years later, theState Circuit Court denied Valle’s second 3.850 Motion; however, the FloridaSupreme Court remanded the motion on appeal for an evidentiary hearingregarding Valle’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Case Information:
Manuel Valle filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida SupremeCourt on 07/07/78. In that appeal he argued that his Sixth and FourteenthAmendment rights had been violated by the expedited nature of his trial. Valle contended that his right to adequate preparation time and right toeffective assistance of counsel were violated when his case went to trial only24 days after his arraignment. Florida Supreme Court agreed and stated:
We find that requiring this appellant to go to trial withintwenty-four days after arraignment resulted in a denial of effective assistanceof counsel where defense counsel, even though diligent, had no opportunity tomake proper inquiry into the appellant’s mental condition or to desposetwenty-four of that fifty-nine witnesses named by the state pursuant to theFlorida criminal discovery rules.
The Florida Supreme Court also found that the trial judge’sdecision to allow Valle’s case to proceed so hurriedly was an abuse ofdiscretion. As such, the high court reversed the convictions and sentenceof death, and remanded for a retrial.
Valle was again convicted of the murder of Officer LouisPena and sentenced to death on 08/04/81. He filed a Direct Appeal in theFlorida Supreme Court arguing that his confession should have been suppressedbecause it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, that the trialcourt erred in allowing under-representation of minorities in the juryselection and that a mistrial should have been granted when the prosecutor forthe State prejudicially commented on Valle’s right to remain silent. Regarding the penalty phase of the trial, Valle contended that the trial judgeerred in excusing a prospective juror for cause and that the court erred inallowing the prosecutor for the State to make improper comments during closingarguments. Valle also challenged the instruction, consideration, andapplication of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in his case. Specifically, Valle argued that the trial court erred in omitting mitigatingevidence that he would be a model prisoner if spared the death penalty. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Valle’s convictions and sentence of death on07/11/85.
Valle then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court, which was granted on 05/05/86. The SupremeCourt vacated the death sentence and remanded to the Florida Supreme Court forfurther consideration of Valle’s case under the dictates of Skipper v. Carolina[1].
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the FloridaSupreme Court found that testimony regarding Valle’s potential future behavioras a model prisoner should have been considered by the jury during the penaltyphase of the trial. As such, the Florida Supreme Court remanded forresentencing before a new jury on 01/05/87.
Valle was resentenced to death on 03/16/88, after which hefiled a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, heargued the improper cross-examination of defense experts who were testifying asto Valle’s prison behavior. The defense’s presentation of Skipper testimonyregarding the admissibility of model prison behavior, gave the prosecution theopportunity to scrutinize Valle’s prison behavior on cross-examination. Valle also challenged the application of the aggravating factor that the victimwas a law enforcement officer engaged in his official duties and theapplication of the cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP) aggravatingfactor. He also argued that the prosecutor improperly presented victimimpact evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Valle’s deathsentence on 05/02/91
Valle then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited 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 withoutprejudice in order to file a legally sufficient motion. Valle then fileda 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 anevidentiary hearing. He steadfastly filed an appeal of that decision inthe Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, Valle claimed he receivedineffective assistance of counsel. Valle argued that his counsel wasineffective for failing to move for the disqualification of his resentencingjudge. Judge Norman Gerstein allegedly kissed the victim’s widow in anoffer of sympathy and fraternized with the victim’s friends in front of thejury. Valle also contended that his counsel was ineffective for presentingSkipper evidence during his resentencing proceedings, which allowed the Stateto bring up that Valle had attempted an escape from prison between the time hisdeath sentence was reversed and the resentencing. Valle claimed that hiscounsel erroneously presented the Skipper evidence because they thought theyhad to, since his earlier sentence reversal was based on the exclusion of suchevidence. Valle contended that without the defense’s presentation of theSkipper evidence, the State would have been unable to present rebuttal evidenceof his escape attempt, and the jury may not have recommended death. TheFlorida 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 anevidentiary hearing on Valle’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Following an evidentiary hearing on Valle’s claims ofineffective assistance of counsel, the State Circuit Court again denied his3.850 Motion. Valle then filed an appeal in the Florida SupremeCourt. The high court noted that Valle’s defense did know that they werenot required to present Skipper evidence. They chose to present evidenceof present non-violent prison behavior, instead of past or future behavior as atactical move in the hopes of preventing the State from presenting rebuttalevidence about Valle’s past prison misconduct. As such, the FloridaSupreme Court affirmed the denial of Valle’s 3.850 Motion.
Valle next filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in theFlorida Supreme Court on 12/31/01, which was denied on 08/29/02.
Valle filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus inthe 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 HabeasCorpus to the United States District Court, Southern District. Thepetition was denied on 09/13/05
Valle filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with theUnited 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 UnitedStates Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. The USCA affirmed the denial ofValle’s Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus on 08/11/06, and a mandate was issuedon 02/27/07.
On 07/16/07, Valle filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorariwith the United States Supreme Court. This petition was denied on10/01/07.
Institutional Adjustment:
DATE DAYS VIOLATION LOCATION
-------- ---- ---------------------------- -------------------
10/14/80 0 DEST. OF ST.PROP. N.F.R.C.- MAIN UNIT
12/14/80 30 DISOBEYINGORDER N.F.R.C.- MAIN UNIT
02/08/83 0 DISORDERLYCONDUCT CENTRAL OFFICE
05/07/83 0 DISORDERLYCONDUCT FSP - WORK CAMP
07/18/84 90 ESCAPE ORATTEMPT FSP - WORK CAMP
11/12/84 15 POSS OFNEGOTIABLES FSP
06/10/86 15 DISORDERLYCONDUCT FSP
01/13/87 180 POSS OF ESCAPEPARA. FSP
11/17/90 15 MISUSE OFSTATE PROP FSP
________________________________________________________________________
Report Date: 04/11/02 EW
Updated: 01/22/09 AEH