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.
VALENTINE, Terance (B/M)
DC # 119682
DOB: 01/21/49
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Case#88-12996
Sentencing Judge, Trial I: The Honorable M. William Graybill
Sentencing Judge, Trial II: The Honorable Diane Allen
Attorneys, Trial I: Thomas Meyers & Linda McKinley –Assistant Public Defenders
Attorneys, Trial II: Walter M. Lopez Jr., Esq. & SimsonUnterberger, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal I: Douglas S. Connor – AssistantPublic Defender
Attorney, Direct Appeal II: Douglas S. Connor – AssistantPublic Defender
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Richard Kiley – CCRC-M
Date of Offense: 09/09/88
Date of Sentence I: 04/12/90
Date of Sentence II: 09/30/94
Circumstances of Offense:
Terance Valentine and his wife Livia Romero immigrated tothe United States in 1975. The couple settled in New Orleans and adopteda child, Giovanna. After seeking a divorce from Valentine in 1986, Romeromarried Ferdinand Porche. Romero then relocated with her daughter and newhusband to Tampa, Florida. Shortly after the move, Romero began receivingthreatening phone calls from Valentine.
On 09/09/88, Ferdinand Porche returned home to meet hisfamily. When Porche entered the house, Valentine shot him in the back,severing his spinal cord and rendering him paralyzed from the waist down. Valentine said to Porche, “This is my revenge.” Porche was forced tocrawl into the bedroom where he saw his pregnant wife naked, bound and gagged,and his baby crying. Valentine then began to systematically beat andtorture Porche, announcing, “I’m gonna kill you, but you’re gonna suffer.”
Valentine then transported Porche and Romero to a remotelocation and shot them both. Livia Romero survived the attack andinformed police that Valentine was the assailant. In the weeks followingher release from the hospital, Romero began to receive calls fromValentine. With the help of police recording devices, Romero taped herconversations with Valentine, which subsequently led to his arrest.
Trial Summary:
09/21/88 Defendant indicted on the following charges:
Count I: ArmedBurglary
Count II: Kidnapping
Count III: Kidnapping
Count IV: Grand Theft 2nd DegreeMotor Vehicle
Count V: First-Degree Murder
Count VI: Attempted First-DegreeMurder
01/25/90 Judge Graybill declared a mistrial after the jury could not reach a
unanimous verdict as toValentine’s guilt. A new trial was set for 03/26/90.
03/29/90 The new jury found the defendant guilty on all counts charged in the
indictment.
03/30/90 Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 10 to 2 majority, voted for the
death penalty.
04/12/90 The defendant was sentenced as follows:
Count I: ArmedBurglary – 99 years
Count II: Kidnapping -99 years
Count III: Kidnapping – 99 years
Count IV: Grand Theft 2nd DegreeMotor Vehicle – 5 years
Count V: First-Degree Murder -Death
Count VI: Attempted First-DegreeMurder – Life
04/15/93 The Florida Supreme Court reversed Valentine’s convictions and sentence
and remanded for a new trial dueto the trial court’s failure to conduct an adequate inquiry into allegationsthat the State used its peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans fromthe jury during voir dire. The Florida Supreme Court found a Neil[1] violation.
07/16/94 At retrial, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts charged in the
indictment.
07/19/94 Valentine waived the jury’s advisory sentence recommendation.
09/30/94 At retrial, the defendant was sentenced as follows:
Count I: ArmedBurglary – Life
Count II: Kidnapping -Life
Count III: Kidnapping – Life
Count IV: Grand Theft 2nd DegreeMotor Vehicle – 5 years
Count V: First-Degree Murder -Death
Count VI: Attempted First-DegreeMurder – 30 years
Appeal Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal I
FSC #75,985
616 So. 2d 971
05/14/90 Appeal filed.
04/15/93 FSC reversed Valentine’s convictions and sentence and remanded for a
new trial due to the trial court’sfailure to conduct an adequate inquiry into allegations that the State used itsperemptory challenges to excluded African Americans from the jury in violationof State v. Neil.
05/17/93 Mandate issued
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal II
FSC #84,472
688 So. 2d 313
10/07/94 Appeal filed.
12/19/96 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence of death.
02/19/97 Rehearing denied.
03/20/97 Mandate issued.
United States Supreme Court - Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #96-9047
522 U.S. 830
05/16/97 Petition filed.
10/06/97 Petition denied.
State Circuit Court - 3.850 Motion
CC #88-12996
05/28/98 Motion filed.
05/14/01 Amended motion filed.
10/28/02 Motion granted in part for an evidentiary hearing and denied in part.
08/03/05 Second Amended motion filed.
10/16/06 Third Amended motion filed.
01/09/07 Amendment denied.
07/31/08 Fourth Amended motion filed.
07/06/10 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC# 10-1463
(Pending)
07/27/10 Appeal filed
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus
FSC# 11-427
(Pending)
03/02/11 Petition filed
Factors Contributing to the Delay in the Imposition ofthe Sentence:
Valentine’s first Direct Appeal was pending from 05/14/90 –04/15/93. The 3.850 Motion was pending from 05/28/98 to 07/06/10.
Case Information:
On 05/14/90, Valentine filed a Direct Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. In that appeal, he argued that the trial court erred byfailing to conduct an adequate inquiry into the defense’s claim that the Stateused peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from the jury inviolation of State v. Neil. Neil set forth the guidelines for determiningwhether a peremptory challenge was unlawfully exercised on the basis ofrace. The Florida Supreme Court also examined Valentine’s claim accordingto the dictates of State v. Slappy. In Slappy, the Florida Supreme Courtmandated that, unless the trial court can cite specific circumstances in therecord to eliminate the all allegations of discrimination, then an inquiry mustbe conducted. Subsequent to Valentine’s conviction and prior to thedisposition of his Direct Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court addressed this sameissue in State v. Johans, in which the Florida Supreme Court dictated that,once a party made an objection to the use of peremptory challenges during voirdire and showed that the challenged individuals were from a specific race, thenan inquiry must be conducted. Since Johans was not decided at the time ofValentine’s conviction, the Florida Supreme Court analyzed Valentine’s claim underthe provisions of Neil and Slappy. As such, the Florida Supreme Courtfound error in the trial court’s failure to conduct an inquiry into thedefense’s allegation that the State used peremptory challenges to excludeAfrican Americans. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that several moreof Valentine’s claims had merit. The court stated:
Although the above issue is dispositive of this case, webriefly evaluate several additional claims to assist the trial court in theevent of retrial. In the context of this case, we find no merit to thefollowing claims: The State failed to obtain the daughter's consent prior torecording the family's telephone calls; and Romero's testimony concerning theBronco was inadmissible hearsay. The following claims have merit: Thedaughter's taped conversation was inflammatory and irrelevant; Romero's tapedstatement that Valentine was a drug dealer was irrelevant; the daughter's priorinconsistent statement should not have been admitted without a properfoundation; the sentencing order is flawed by the court's failure to conduct anindependent weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and the jurywas improperly instructed on the aggravating circumstance of heinous, atrociousor cruel per Espinosa v. Florida.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed Valentine’s convictionsand sentences and remanded for a new trial on 04/15/93.
Following retrial, Valentine was again convicted on allcounts charged in the indictment and sentenced to death. He again filed aDirect Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, Valentineargued that since he and Romero were never legally divorced, portions of hertestimony should have been barred under the spousal evidentiaryprivilege. Valentine also claimed that he was illegally arrested on aflawed warrant and thus his statements to law enforcement were tainted by theillegal arrest. He also argued that the introduction of footprintevidence was error because it insufficiently linked to him to the crime. Additionally, Valentine argued that his conviction for Attempted First-DegreeMurder was erroneous. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Valentine’ssentence of death on 12/19/96.
On 05/16/97, Valentine filed a Petition for Writ ofCertiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court that was denied on 10/16/97.
On 05/28/98, Valentine filed a 3.850 Motion in the StateCircuit Court. Amended 3.850 Motions were filed on 5/14/01. The motionwas granted in part on 08/01/02 for an evidentiary hearing and denied in partthe same day. On 08/03/05, Valentine filed a second amended motion in theState Circuit Court. On 10/16/06, he filed a third amended motion andthen on 01/09/07, an order was issued denying the amendment to the 3.850motion. On 07/31/08, Valentine filed a fourth amended motion in theCircuit Court. This motion was denied on 07/06/10.
Valentine filed a 3.850 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Courton 07/27/10. This appeal is currently pending.
Valentine filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in theFlorida Supreme Court on 03/02/11. This petition is currently pending.
Institutional Adjustment:
DATE DAYS VIOLATION LOCATION
-------- ---- ---------------------------- -------------------
05/16/96 0 DISRESP.TO OFFICIALS UNION C.I.
12/11/97 10 DISRESP.TOOFFICIALS UNION C. I.
07/18/00 30 FIGHTING UNION C. I.
09/24/00 0 DEFACING STATE PROP. UNION C. I.
05/08/01 30 LOANING MONEY UNION C.I.
06/07/01 60 DISRESP.TOOFFICIALS UNION C. I.
10/10/01 60 DISORDERLYCONDUCT UNION C. I.
09/03/02 180 UNARMEDASSAULT UNION C.I.
12/26/02 60 DISRESP.TOOFFICIALS UNION C. I.
02/24/05 60 DISRESP.TOOFFICIALS UNION C. I.
________________________________________________________________________
Report Date: 07/10/02 EW
Approved: 07/11/02 WS
Updated: 03/08/11 EMJ