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.
ROBERTS, Rickey (B/M)
A.K.A. Less McCullars
DOB: 10/05/54
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case #84-13010
Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Harold Solomon
Attorney, Trial: Ken Lange – Special Assistant PublicDefender
Attorney, Direct Appeal: Geoffrey C. Fleck – SpecialAssistant Public Defender
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Martin J. McClain –CCRC-S
Date of Offense: 06/04/84
Date of Sentence: 12/31/85
Circumstances of Offense:
Rickey Roberts was convicted and sentenced to death for themurder of George Napoles.
In the late evening of 06/03/84, Michelle Rimondi, GeorgeNapoles and Jammie Campbell parked their car alongside the beach near KeyBiscayne off Rickenbacker Causeway. All three drank wine and fellasleep. Later in the evening, Rimondi woke and saw another carapproaching them. The car parked along the beach next to them. RickeyRoberts got out of the car and approached Napoles’ car.
Rimondi was able to wake Napoles but not Campbell. Roberts asked the two what they were doing out on the beach and asked forNapoles’ identification. Napoles gave Roberts his identification under theimpression that Roberts was an undercover beach patrol officer. Afterinspecting Napoles’ license, he proceeded to frisk Rimondi, during which hefondled her breasts and thighs. His actions made Napoles very suspiciousof Roberts, and he demanded to see police identification. Roberts saidhis identification was back in his car. Napoles accompanied Roberts tohis car. Instead of showing identification, Roberts pulled out a baseballbat. He then forced Napoles back to the other car. At this time,Roberts told Rimondi to face toward the car and not turn around; however, shewatched over her shoulder as Roberts hit Napoles repeatedly in the head andback with a baseball bat. After beating him, Roberts pushed Napolestowards the beach. Roberts then instructed Rimondi to take off her clothesthreatening that, if she did not comply, she would get the same beating asNapoles or worse. While Rimondi was disrobing, Roberts heard another carpassing by and told her to get dressed and get into his car. He drove awhile and then parked and raped Rimondi.
For the next several hours, Roberts drove around withRimondi. She conversed with him, assuring him that she did not mean him anytrouble and asking him to please drive her home. At this point, Robertsrealized that he had left his wallet back at the beach and returned withRimondi to retrieve it.
When they arrived back at the beach Roberts turned Napoles’body’s face-up. Rimondi testified that Napoles was still alive at thistime. Roberts saw that Campbell remained asleep in the car and drove offwith Rimondi.
Roberts pulled over and raped Rimondi a second time. He then dropped her off at her home. Rimondi called the police to reportthe incident.
Napoles’ body was found on the beach the morning of 06/04/84. Rimondi gave police clues to identify Roberts and later was able to positivelyidentify both Roberts and his automobile. At first Roberts denied beingpresent at the murder scene. After being told that his palm print wasfound on the top of Napoles’ car, Roberts said that he had picked up Rimondi,who said she needed a ride home because her friends were passed out fromdrinking. According to Roberts, they returned to Napoles’ car to getRimondi’s purse and he had leaned on the car at that time. Robertsfurther claimed he did not rape Rimondi or kill Napoles.
Trial Summary:
06/21/84 Roberts was indicted on the followingcounts:
Count I: First-DegreeMurder (George Napoles)
Count II: ArmedSexual Battery (Michelle Rimondi)
Count III: ArmedRobbery
Count IV: ArmedRobbery
Count V: ArmedKidnapping
12/16/85 The jury found Roberts guilty for Counts1, 2 and 5 and not guilty for Counts 3 and 4 of the indictment.
12/18/85 Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 7to 5 majority, voted for the death penalty.
12/31/85 Roberts was sentenced as follows:
Count I: First-DegreeMurder (George Napoles) – Death
Count II: ArmedSexual Battery (Michelle Rimondi) – Life
Count V: ArmedKidnapping – Life
Appeals Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC #68,296
510 So. 2d 885
02/10/86 Appeal filed.
07/02/87 FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence.
09/03/87 Rehearing denied.
10/06/87 Mandate issued.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #87-5971
485 U.S. 943
11/23/87 Petition filed.
03/07/88 USSC denied the Petition.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus
FSC #74,778
568 So. 2d 1255
09/28/89 Petition filed.
09/06/90 Petition denied.
11/27/90 Rehearing denied and mandate issued.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #84-13010
09/28/89 Motion filed.
10/25/89 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC #74,920
568 So. 2d 1255
10/25/89 Appeal filed.
09/06/90 FSC affirmed the denial of the 3.850 Motion.
11/27/90 Rehearing denied and mandate issued.
U.S. District Court, Southern District – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus
USDC# 91-571
794 F. Supp. 1106
03/22/91 Petition filed
06/05/92 Petition denied.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus Appeal
USCA# 92-4780
29 F. 3d 1474
08/14/92 Appeal filed.
08/10/94 Denial of petition affirmed.
10/31/94 Rehearing denied.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus
FSC# 81,112
626 So. 2d 168
01/21/93 Petition filed.
09/16/93 Petition denied.
11/17/93 Rehearing denied.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC# 94-8722
515 U.S. 1133
03/27/95 Petition filed.
06/12/95 Petition denied.
08/11/95 Rehearing denied.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC# 84-13010
02/20/96 Motion filed.
02/22/96 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC# 87,438
678 So. 2d 1232
02/22/96 Appeal filed.
06/06/96 FSC reversed the denial of the 3.850 Motion and remanded for an evidentiaryhearing.
09/04/96 Rehearing denied.
10/04/96 Mandate issued.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion (on remand)
CC# 84-13010
07/16/97 Evidentiary hearing held.
10/01/97 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC# 92,496
840 So. 2d 962
03/04/98 Appeal filed.
12/05/02 FSC vacated the denial of the 3.850 Motion and remanded for an evidentiaryhearing.
03/13/03 Rehearing denied.
04/14/03 Mandate issued.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC# 84-13010
05/03/00 Motion filed.
11/30/00 Evidentiary Hearing held.
01/12/01 Motion granted, resentencing ordered.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion (on remand)
CC# 84-13010
10/22/04 Evidentiary Hearing held to determine ifnew guilt phase is warranted.
09/02/05 Motion filed.
09/02/05 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC# 05-1847
995 So.2d 186
10/10/05 Appeal filed.
05/29/08 Disposition affirmed.
06/17/08 Motion for Rehearing filed.
09/25/08 Rehearing denied.
10/10/08 Successive Motion for Rehearing filed.
11/20/08 Rehearing denied.
12/08/08 Mandate issued.
Clemency:
12/07/88 Clemency hearing held (denied).
Warrants:
08/29/89 Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Martinez.
10/26/89 Stay of execution granted by the Florida Supreme Court
01/25/96 Warrant signed by Governor Chiles.
02/22/96 Florida Supreme Court granted stay of execution.
02/27/96 Florida Supreme Court granted stay of execution.
Factors Contributing to the Delay in Imposition ofSentence:
The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case for anevidentiary hearing twice. The 3.850 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Courtwas pending for more than four years prior to being remanded for an evidentiaryhearing in 2002. There was over a two year delay between the denial ofthe 1993 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the filing of the Petition forWrit of Certiorari in 1995.
Case Information:
Roberts filed his Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Courton 02/10/86. The issues addressed included that the evidence wasinsufficient to support a First-Degree Murder conviction, the trial court judgefailed to attend the jury viewing of the crime scene, Roberts was not presentin three proceedings that he argued violated his right to be present at allcrucial stages of the trial. Roberts also contended that his right totestify on his own behalf was violated and that error occurred in that thestate was allowed to cross-examine a witness outside the scope of the directexamination, and that the court erred in the handling of mitigating factors.Roberts further argued that the action of the court limiting his directexamination testimony violated the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments andthat the death penalty was inappropriately applied, not proportional, anddiscriminatorily applied based upon the victim’s race and the offender’sgender. The Florida Supreme Court did not find errors that warrantedreversing the conviction or sentence and affirmed the conviction and sentenceon 07/02/87.
Roberts filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on 11/23/87in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied on 03/07/88.
Roberts filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in theFlorida Supreme Court on 09/28/89. The issues addressed included the useof the Rape Shield Law and ineffective counsel. The Florida Supreme Courtdenied the petition on 09/06/90.
Roberts filed his first 3.850 Motion on 09/28/89 in thecircuit court. The motion was denied on 10/25/89.
Roberts filed a 3.850 Appeal on 10/25/89 in the FloridaSupreme Court. The issues addressed included that the Florida Rule ofCriminal Procedure 3.851 lessens the time to file post-conviction motions,which he contests violates his right to due process and equal protection. Roberts further argued the court used an improper standard to rule on thedefense’s Neil Objection[1]. He also argued that the application of Florida’s Rape Shield Law limited hisability to present a full defense, that assistance of counsel was ineffectiveand that a Brady Violation[2]was committed. Roberts challenged the application of aggravatingfactors to find the crime heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Other claims werepresented but barred since they were addressed in the direct appeal. TheFlorida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the 3.850 Motion on09/06/90.
Roberts filed a Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpusin the United States District Court (Southern District) on 03/22/91. Roberts raised 25 claims. Roberts argued that the application of Florida’s RapeShield Law denied his right to present a defense, testify on his behalf, andcross-examine witnesses. He further argued that assistance ofcounsel was ineffective, that a Brady Violation2 was committed, and that theState excused black jurors due to race. Roberts also argued that he waslimited in cross-examining witnesses and not present at key stages of thetrial. The United States District Court denied the petition on 06/05/92.
Roberts filed a Federal Habeas Appeal in the United StatesCourt of Appeals (11th Circuit) on 08/14/92. The issues addressedincluded the argument that the use of the Rape Shield Statute violated the 6thand 14th Amendments and exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense,which Roberts argued also violated the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. Errors occurred in allowing statements of a witness to be included, the trialcourt’s denying Roberts the opportunity to cross-examine State’s witnessesabout pending charges and Roberts did not receive effective assistance ofcounsel during the guilt phase. Roberts also contended that he receivedineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase, the jury receivedinsufficient instruction concerning the aggravating factors, and that themitigating factors were not considered by the sentencing judge. TheUnited States Court of Appeals affirmed the Habeas denial on 08/10/94.
Roberts filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in theFlorida Supreme Court on 01/21/93. The issues addressed included thatUnited States Supreme Court decisions involving the jury instructions onaggravating factors of finding the crime heinous, atrocious, or cruel altersFlorida law, resulting in an error in Roberts’ sentencing. TheFlorida Supreme Court denied the petition 09/16/93.
Roberts filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on 03/27/95with the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied on 06/12/95.
Roberts filed a second 3.850 Motion on 02/20/96 with theCircuit Court. The motion was denied on 02/22/96.
Roberts filed a 3.850 Appeal on 02/22/96 with the FloridaSupreme Court. The issues addressed included that one witness recantedher testimony and that the state obstructed his attempts to depose witnessesand public records. Based on their findings in regards to these matters,the Florida Supreme Court reversed the denial of the 3.850 Motion on 06/06/96and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing.
Roberts filed a 3.850 Motion on remand on 07/16/97 with theCircuit Court. The motion was denied on 10/01/97.
Roberts filed a 3.850 Appeal on 03/04/98 with the FloridaSupreme Court. The issues addressed included that the trial judge erredin denying the motion to disqualify himself and denying the motion todisqualify the assistant state attorney, that the court erred in not issuing acertificate of materiality so that Roberts could acquire an out-of-statesubpoena, and that Judge Solomon was assigned to post-conviction proceedingsduring ex parte proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court reversed thedenial of the 3.850 Motion on 12/05/02 and remanded the case for an evidentiaryhearing. On 01/12/01, the court affirmed the granting of the 3.850 Motion bythe Circuit Court.
On 05/03/00, Roberts filed a third 3.850 Motion with theCircuit Court. On 01/12/01, the motion was granted and resentencingordered based on ex parte communication by the sentencing judge and theimproper drafting of the sentencing order.
On 10/22/04, and Evidentiary hearing was held in the CircuitCourt to determine whether a new guilt phase was warranted. Roberts filed a3.850 Motion in the Circuit Court on 09/02/05, which was denied the same day.
On 10/10/05, Roberts filed a 3.850 Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. On 05/29/08, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trialcourt’s disposition. On 06/17/08, Roberts filed a Motion for Rehearing, whichwas denied on 09/25/08. On 10/10/08, Roberts filed a Successive Motion forRehearing. This motion was denied on 11/20/08. The Florida Supreme Courtissued a mandate in this case on 12/08/08.
A resentencing hearing is scheduled in the Circuit Court for06/30/09.
Institutional Adjustment:
| DATE | DAYS | VIOLATION | LOCATION |
| 11/29/93 | 0 | Disobeying order | Union C.I. |
| 03/03/96 | 0 | Unauthorized physical contact | Union C.I. |
| 08/01/01 | 0 | Disobeying order | Union C.I. |
________________________________________________________________________
Report Date: 11/04/04 DDK
Approved: 11/10/04 JFL
Updated: 05/22/09 AEH
[1] A Neil Objection is a procedure for the trial courtto follow when the issue of race-motivated peremptory challenges arises. Aparty objecting to the other side's use of a peremptory challenge on racialgrounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that thevenireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that thecourt ask the striking party its reason for the strike.
[2] A Brady Violation occurs when the prosecutionwithholds information favorable to the defendant’s case.