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. 

Holton, Rudolph (B/M)

DC#     829326           

DOB:   04/20/53         

­­­­

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Case #86-8931A and 86-15176A

Sentencing Judge, Trial: The Honorable Harry Lee Coe, III

Attorney, Trial: Mina Morgan, Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Douglas S. Connor, Assistant PublicDefender

Attorney, Collateral Appeals:  Linda McDermott, CCRC-N/ MartinMcClain, Special

 AssistantCCRC-N

Date of Offense:           01/23/86         

Date of Sentence:         12/05/86         

Circumstances of Offense:

Rudolph Holton was convicted and sentenced to death for the 06/23/86 murder of Katrina Graddy.

The unclothed, partially burnt body of Katrina Graddy wasfound in a vacant burning crack house on 06/23/86.  There was a piece of nylon cloth tied around her neck as well as around one wrist.  A glass bottlewas partially protruding from her anus.  There were no traces of sperm found onthe body.  The investigation concluded that the fire had been intentionallystarted, but the victim died due to strangulation.

Carl Schenck was questioned after he was found sleeping inhis truck directly across the street from the burning house where Graddy’s bodywas found.  Schenck said that he had been parked there since approximately 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. the previous evening.  He said that he had picked up a hitchhikerearlier and was waiting for the hitchhiker to return with marijuana.  In themeantime, Schenck had fallen asleep, but was awakened when the fire enginesarrived.  The hitchhiker left a black shaving bag in Schenck’s car, which wasadmitted into evidence.  While Schenck was unable to conclusively make apositive identification of Holton as the hitchhiker either by photographs or attrial, he did say that Holton looked a lot like the hitchhiker.

Johnny Lee Newsome said that he saw Holton with the victimon the night of the murder at approximately 11:00 p.m.  Newsome stated that he recalled seeing Holton carrying a black shaving bag. A second witness saidthat she saw Holton go into the vacant house at 11:00 p.m. on the night of the murder.  A third witness, Flemmie Birkins, an acquaintance of Holton’s for anumber of years, was in jail serving time when the police arrested Holton. Flemmie testified that Holton confessed to having strangled a girl to deathbefore setting fire to the house.  Flemmie added that Holton told him that hedid not intentionally kill the girl. 

Holton told investigators that he was home at the time ofthe murder.  Holton’s alibi was supported by Solodon “Red” Clemmons, who ownedthe house that Holton was living in at the time of the murder.  Holtonadditionally claimed that the last time he had been to the vacant house was tendays before the murder.  When investigators told Holton that they found hisfingerprints on a cigarette pack found in the house, he admitted to having beenin the house shooting drugs several days prior to the murder, but denied havingbeen near the vacant house on the evening of the murder.  Scratches on Holton’schest were photographed along with a cut on his finger. 

Three hairs were removed from the victim’s mouth at themedical examiner’s office.  The only conclusive remarks that the expert couldoffer were that the hairs were from an African American, which included boththe victim and the defendant.  Additionally, one of the hairs was from one ofthree possible areas: the area immediately above the pubic area, from inbetween the anus and the lower pubic area, or from the nape of the neck.

The defense learnedduring the pretrial investigation that the victim reported being raped anally aweek prior to the murder by a person who used a street name of “Pine.”  Thedefense could not ascertain the true identity of “Pine” prior to the trial andproceeded without that information.  During an evidentiary hearing severalyears after Holton’s conviction, the trial attorney was shown two policereports that were taken on the night of the alleged rape.  One of the policereports confirmed that the victim had reported being raped, but withdrew thecomplaint.  The second report showed that a David Pearson was questioned bypolice and arrested for obstruction by giving a false name (he gave the name ofDonald Smith), even though the sexual battery charges were dropped by thevictim.  The trial attorney stated that had she had this information prior toproceeding with the trial, she could have pursued the connection between the incidentwith David Pearson (Pine) and the subsequent murder of the victim.  Additionally,the defense presented the argument that Pearson’s criminal records indicatedthat Pearson carried a leather black pouch, which had a similar description tothe shaving bag seized from Schneck’s car.

At trial, Flemmie testified that he was plea-bargaining downto 3 ½ to 4 ½ years.  The defense attorney did not receive a copy of Flemmie’sprior criminal history, which she had requested, and after a subsequent statescore sheet calculation error, Flemmie accepted a plea under minimum sentencingguidelines.  The defense attorney was not privy to the relevant informationbecause she did not have Flemmie’s criminal history, and, therefore, she couldnot verify the information herself.  All three of the witnesses recanted theirtestimony, but at least one of the witnesses withdrew their recantations. 

Based on Holton’s BradyClaim[1]and under a cumulative error review, the Circuit Court granted a new trialafter vacating Holton’s convictions and sentences.

Trial Summary:

07/09/86          Defendant indicted on the following:

                                    CountI:            First-Degree Murder

                                    CountII:           Sexual Battery

                                    CountIII:         Arson

12/05/86          The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts

12/17/86          The jury recommended that the defendant be sentencedto death by a vote

of 7-5

12/17/86          The defendant was sentenced as follows:

Count I:            First-Degree Murder – Death

                                    CountII:           Sexual Battery – Life

                                    CountIII:         Arson – 30 years

Prior Arrest History in Florida:

Appeal Summary:

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 69,861

573 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1990)

01/05/87          Appeal filed

09/27/90          FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence

01/15/91          Rehearing granted in part; affirmed sentence ofdeath, but FSC remanded

case for new sentence on other charges

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writof Certiorari

Case # 90-7757

500 U.S. 960; 111 S. Ct. 2275; 114 L. Ed. 2d 726 (U.S. 1991)

04/16/91          Petition filed

06/03/91          Petition denied

State Circuit Court, Motion to Vacate Judgment andSentence (3.850)

CC # 86-8931A &86-15176A

07/21/92          Motion filed

01/29/99          Circuit Court vacated conviction and sentence andgranted a new trial

Florida Supreme Court, Appeal of Order VacatingJudgment and Sentence

(Filed by the State)

FSC # 01-2671

12/04/01          Appeal filed

12/18/02          Affirmed the Circuit Court’s order

Case Information:

A Direct Appeal was filedwith the Florida Supreme Court on 01/05/87.  Issues that were raised on appeal included whether the defendant was denied a fair trial because of improperprejudicial comments during the state’s closing argument; whether the trialcourt erred in not granting a continuance until a key defense witness could belocated to testify; and whether the death sentence should be overturned becausethe sentence was imposed on December 5, 1986, but the trial judge’s writtenfindings are dated      February 12, 1987, two months after sentencing andfollowing certification of the record on February 6, 1987.  The Florida SupremeCourt found all of the errors either harmless or without error and affirmed theconvictions and sentences on 09/27/90.  The Florida Supreme Court granted therehearing in part by affirming the penalty of death for the First-Degree Murdercharge, but remanding the case for a new sentencing hearing on the othercharges.  A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the United StatesSupreme Court on 04/16/91 and denied on 06/03/91. 

A 3.850 Motion was filedwith the state Circuit Court on 07/21/92. The Circuit Court granted anevidentiary hearing on several issues on 01/29/99, but also denied relief on numerous claims.  On 08/03/00, the State admitted error in the improperpreparation of Holton’s sentencing order and stipulated that Holton should havea new penalty phase.  A third amended 3.850 Motion was filed on 01/08/01 in which the trial court entered an order that expanded the issues included inevidentiary hearing to include Holton’s Brady Claim.  The Circuit Court grantedthe 3.850 on 11/02/01 and granted a new trial after vacating the convictionsand sentences.  The State filed an appeal of the Circuit Court order with theFlorida Supreme Court on 12/04/01, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed theCircuit Court’s order on 12/18/02.  On 01/24/03, the State declined to prosecute Holton in a new trial.

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

Mark Ober, State Attorneyfor the 13^th Judicial Circuit, provided the following writtenstatement:

In1986, Rudolph Holton was convicted by a jury of his peers for the murder ofKatrina Graddy, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Sincethat time, the trial court has ordered a new trial after an evidentiary hearingin 2001 where trial witnesses recanted their testimony and an alternativesuspect was developed over a decade later.

Thepolice detectives and the prosecutor handled the case ethically with theinformation they had at the time.

Thereal focus of my inquiry in January 2003 of the Holton case was to legallyassess the case as it exists today.  After an objective, impartial, andextremely detailed analysis of the evidence by senior members of my staff andmyself, it became clear that the case could not be proven beyond a reasonabledoubt.

Thiswas a very complicated case and was carefully examined from all aspects.  Wecould not proceed with a new trial because of the witness recantations, whichare highly suspect, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the defense’sargument of an alternate suspect. 

Thisoffice could not ethically proceed with the case because of those factors. However, it should be made abundantly clear that I am not saying that RudolphHolton did not commit this crime.  My stance is that the State of Florida can not prove the case against Mr. Holton beyond a reasonable doubt, and we do nothave a reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction as the case existstoday.

A request for a statementwas made to the Tampa Police Department, but no comment has been received todate.

Defense Statements:

Linda McDermott, anattorney at CCRC-N, provided the following written statement:

I have been Mr. Holton’sprimary counsel in his postconviction proceedings since 1997.  Shortly afterbecoming involved in his case, I began to realize the strong possibility of hisinnocence.  Through hard work, dedication, and the assistance of my colleaguesat CCRC, we were able to transform that possibility into a reality. 

Mr. Holton is innocent ofthe murder of Katrina Graddy.  This conclusion has been echoed by many otherswho have taken a close look at this case.  A news article recently reportedthat the original prosecutor who tried Mr. Holton’s case now believes he isinnocent.  During an oral argument which I conducted before the Florida SupremeCourt, Justice Pariente stated that Mr. Holton’s case ‘comes close to one ofthe strongest cases of potential for actual innocence that [she] had seen.’

Remarkably, the FloridaSupreme Court issued an order affirming the lower court’s granting of a newtrial just six days after the oral argument.  In my experience, a minimum ofsix months to one year often elapses prior to an opinion being issued by theCourt.

________________________________________________________________________

Report Date: 02/18/03              cc

Approval Date: 02/27/03          ws