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.
THOMPSON, William (W/M)
DC # 053779
DOB: 02/19/52
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case #76-3350
Judge, 1st Sentencing: The Honorable N. Joseph Duran, Jr.
Judge, 2nd Sentencing: The Honorable John A.Tanksley
Resentencing Judge: The Honorable S. PeterCapua
Attorney, 1st Sentencing: Arthur Rothenberg - AssistantPublic Defender
Attorney, 2nd Sentencing: Harry Solomon, Esq.
Attorneys, Resentencing: Joy Carr, Esq., Raymond Badini,Esq. & John Lapinsky, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal I: Louis M. Jepeway, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal II: Harry Solomon, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal, Resentencing: Geoffrey C. Fleck,Esq.
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Terri Backhus and Stacie Brown– CCRC-S
Date of Offense: 03/30/76
Date of Sentencing I: 06/24/76
Date of Sentencing II: 09/20/78
Date of Resentencing: 08/25/89
Circumstances of Offense:
William Thompson was convicted and sentenced to death forthe 03/30/76 kidnapping, rape and murder of Sally Ivester.
William Thompson, Rocco Surace, Barbara Savage and SallyIvester were staying together in a motel room in Dade County. Thompsonand Surace instructed the two women to call their families in order to obtainmoney. Both Thompson and Surace became enraged when Sally could only get$25 from her family, when she had previously claimed that she could get closeto $200. At that time, Surace ordered Sally into the bedroom where hebegan to strike her in the face with his chain-link belt. Surace orderedSally to take off her clothes, while Thompson systematically beat her with thechain-link belt. The two men then sodomized her with the leg of a chairand also with a nightstick. The violent ramming tore the inner lining ofthe vaginal wall, causing internal bleeding. Thompson and Surace burnedSally with cigarettes and lighters, forced her to eat a sanitary napkin, andlick beer off the floor. The two men then took Sally to a phone booth andordered her to call her mother to ask for more money. After the phonecall, Thompson and Surace took Sally back to the motel room where the brutalbeating continued. Sally died from the injuries sustained in the assault.
Barbara Savage, who was a witness to the murder of SallyIvester, testified that she feared for her life if she tried to leave the motelduring the malicious attack.
Codefendant Information:
Rocco Surace
Rocco Surace pled guilty to the kidnapping, rape and murderof Sally Ivester. The trial court sentenced him to death; however, theFlorida Supreme Court reversed the sentence on appeal. At Surace’sretrial, Thompson testified, claiming responsibility for the entire incidentand Surace was found guilty of Second Degree Murder. He was sentenced tolife and died on 11/14/93 while in the custody of the Florida Department ofCorrections.
Trial Summary:
04/01/76 Defendantarrested.
04/14/76 Defendantindicted on:
Count I: First-Degree Murder (Sally Ivester)
Count II: Kidnapping
Count III: Sexual Battery
05/07/76 Defendantwas arraigned and entered a plea of “not guilty” to all counts charged in theindictment.
06/15/76 Defendant changed his plea to “guilty” on all counts charged in the indictment.
06/15/76 Judgmentrendered by the trial court.
06/17/76 Uponadvisory sentencing, the jury voted by a majority for the death penalty.
06/24/76 Thedefendant was sentenced as followed:
Count I: First-Degree Murder (Sally Ivester) – Death
Count II: Kidnapping - Life
CountIII: Sexual Battery – Life
06/23/77 UponDirect Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgments and sentence ofdeath and remanded to the trial court with instructions to allow Thompsonto withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
09/18/78 Thedefendant again pled guilty to all counts charged in the indictment.
09/18/78 Judgmentrendered by the trial court.
09/20/78 Uponadvisory sentencing, the jury voted by a majority for the death penalty.
09/20/78 Thedefendant was sentenced as followed:
Count I: FirstDegree Murder - Death
Count II: Kidnapping - Life
CountIII: Sexual Battery – Life
09/09/87 Ina consolidated opinion, FSC remanded Thompson’s case for resentencing under thedictates of Hitchcock v. Dugger[1].
Resentencing Summary:
04/17/89 A new penalty phase commenced before a new jury.
06/06/89 Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 7 to 5 majority, voted for the deathpenalty.
08/25/89 Thompson was resentenced as followed:
CountI: First-DegreeMurder – Death
Count II: Kidnapping – Life
Count III: SexualBattery – Life
Appeal Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC #49,964
351 So. 2d 701
07/30/76 Appeal filed.
06/23/77 In a consolidated opinion with Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal (FSC # 50,486),
FSC reversed the judgment andsentence, and remanded to the trial court with instructions to allow Thompsonto withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
11/28/77 Rehearing denied.
12/02/77 Mandate issued.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #76-3350
06/30/76 Motion filed to set aside the imposition of the death penalty.
07/07/76 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal
FSC #50,486
351 So. 2d 701
10/29/76 Appeal filed.
06/23/77 In a consolidated opinion with Thompson’s Direct Appeal (FSC # 49,964), FSCreversed the judgment and sentence, and remanded to the trial court with instructionsto allow Thompson to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
11/28/77 Rehearing denied.
12/02/77 Mandate issued.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #77-6265
435 U.S. 998
02/27/78 Petition filed.
04/24/78 Petition denied.
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC #55,697
389 So. 2d 197
12/11/78 Appeal filed.
07/03/80 FSC affirmed the judgments and sentence of death.
11/06/80 Rehearing denied.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #76-3350
08/05/81 Motion filed.
08/06/81 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal
FSC #61,164
410 So. 2d 500
09/11/81 Appeal filed.
02/11/82 Denial of Thompson’s 3.850 Motion affirmed.
U.S. District Court, Southern District – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus
USDC #82-365
02/24/82 Petition filed.
04/28/82 Motion for continuance granted.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #76-3350
02/22/82 Motion filed.
05/14/84 Motion dismissed without prejudice as the State waived exhaustion of Thompson’sunexhausted claims and the USDC accepted the waiver.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Interlocutory Appeal (Filed byState)
USCA #82-6052
714 F.2d 1495 (U.S. 1983)
07/08/82 Interlocutory appeal filed.
09/06/83 USCA vacated the decision reached by the USDC and remanded the case in order toallow the USDC to consider whether to accept or reject the State’s waiver ofThompson’s unexhausted claims under the guidelines set forth by the USCA.
10/12/83 Rehearing denied.
U.S. District Court, Southern District – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus (On Remand)
USDC #82-365
09/06/83 Case remanded by USCA in order to allow the USDC to consider whether to acceptor reject the State’s waiver of Thompson’s unexhausted claims under the guidelinesset forth by the USCA.
09/12/84 USDC denied Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Habeas Appeal
USCA #84-5815
787 F. 2d 1447
10/04/84 Appeal filed.
04/10/86 USCA affirmed the denial of Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #86-5769
481 U.S. 1042
10/27/86 Petition filed.
05/04/87 Petition denied.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #76-3350
06/18/87 Motion filed.
06/29/87 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal
FSC #70,781
515 So. 2d 173
06/29/87 Appeal filed.
09/09/87 In a consolidated opinion with Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,FSC remanded Thompson’s case for resentencing under the dictates of Hitchcockv. Dugger.
12/07/87 Rehearing denied.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus
FSC #70,739
515 So. 2d 173
06/19/87 Petition filed.
09/09/87 In a consolidated opinion with Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal, FSC deemed Thompson’spetition to be moot since the case was remanded for resentencing based on theHitchcock claim.
12/07/87 Rehearing denied.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari(Filed by State)
USSC #87-1197
485 U.S. 960
01/19/88 Petition filed.
03/21/88 Petition denied.
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (Resentencing)
FSC #75,499
619 So. 2d 261
02/06/90 Appeal filed.
06/04/92 FSC affirmed Thompson’s sentence of death.
04/01/93 FSC issued a clarified opinion and again affirmed Thompson’s death sentence.
06/10/93 Rehearing denied.
07/12/93 Mandate issued.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #93-5621
510 U.S. 966
08/16/93 Petition filed.
11/08/93 Petition denied.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #76-3350
05/23/95 Motion filed.
11/08/95 Amended motion filed.
12/12/95 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal
FSC #87,481
759 So. 2d 650
02/28/96 Appeal filed.
04/13/00 In a consolidated opinion with Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,FSC affirmed the denial of Thompson’s 3.850 Motion.
06/13/00 Rehearing denied.
07/19/00 Mandate issued.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus
FSC #88,321
759 So. 2d 650
06/25/96 Petition filed.
04/13/00 In a consolidated opinion with Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal, FSC denied Thompson’sPetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
U.S. District Court, Southern District – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus
USDC #01-2457
06/13/01 Petition filed.
12/14/01 Petition dismissed.
01/29/02 Motion for certificate of appealability granted in part and denied in part.
U.S. Court of Appeal, 11th Circuit – Habeas Appeal
USCA #02-10642
320 F. 3d 1228
02/04/02 Appeal filed.
02/06/03 Denial Affirmed.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #76-3350
06/18/03 Motion filed.
11/12/03 Motion denied.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #03-6245
544 U.S. 957 (2007)
08/01/03 Petition filed.
04/04/05 Thompson’s petition was granted. The USSC vacated Thompson’s judgment andremanded the case to the USCA.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC# 76-3350
08/09/04 Motion filed.
12/17/04 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal
FSC# 05-279
962 So.2d 340 (2007)
02/15/05 Appeal filed.
04/17/06 Relinquished to the Circuit Court
U.S. Court of Appeal, 11th Circuit – Habeas Appeal (OnRemand)
USCA #02-10642
425 F.3d 1364
10/31/05 USCA vacated its 02/06/03 opinion and remanded to the USDC.
U.S. District Court, Southern District – Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus (On Remand)
USDC #01-2457
07/21/06 USDC denied petition.
U.S. Court of Appeal, 11th Circuit – Habeas Appeal
USCA #06-14660
517 F.3d 1279
08/18/06 Appeal filed.
07/15/08 Mandate entered, affirming District Court judgment
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC# 76-3350
04/19/06 FSC# 05-279 Relinquished to Circuit Court
08/08/07 Motion filed
08/28/07 Motion denied
09/11/07 Motion for Rehearing
09/19/07 Motion for Rehearing denied
05/04/09 Evidentiary Hearing held
05/21/09 Motion denied
Florida Supreme Court – 3.851 Motion Appeal
FSC# 07-2000
3 So.3d 1237
10/22/07 Appeal filed
02/04/09 Oral Arguments held
02/27/09 Reversed and Remanded for EH in Circuit Court
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC# 08-7369
129 S.Ct. 1580
09/26/08 Petition filed
03/09/09 Petition denied
Florida Supreme Court – 3.203 Motion Appeal
FSC# 09-1085
41 So.3d 219
06/18/09 Appeal filed
05/06/10 FSC affirmed the decision of the lowercourt
05/24/10 Motion for Rehearing filed
07/09/10 Motion denied
State Circuit Court – 3.851 Motion
CC# 76-3350
11/29/10 Motion filed
02/08/11 Motion denied
Florida Supreme Court – 3.851 Appeal
FSC# 11-493
(Pending)
03/16/11 Appeal filed
Warrants:
02/05/82 Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.
03/02/82 Scheduled execution date.
02/25/82 Stay of execution granted by the United States District Court, SouthernDistrict.
05/13/87 Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.
07/23/87 Scheduled execution date.
07/02/87 Stay of execution granted by the Florida Supreme Court.
Clemency:
01/12/82 Clemency hearing held (denied).
Factors Contributing to the Delay in the Imposition ofthe Sentence:
William Thompson has been on death row since 1976. Hehas sought extensive relief at both the State and Federal levels. He hasfiled six (6) motions for relief pursuant to Criminal Rule of AppellateProcedure 3.850 and two (2) Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus at the Statelevel. In 1987, Thompson’s case was remanded for resentencing based onthe United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hitchcock v. Dugger. He wasagain sentenced to death. His Direct Appeal following resentencing tookover three years to decide. Thompson was then denied relief in the StateCircuit Court. Thompson’s appeal of that denial lasted for over fouryears, finally reaching disposition in April 2000.
Case Information:
On 07/30/96, Thompson filed a Direct Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. At the same time, he filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment andSentence (3.850) in the State Circuit Court. Thompson’s 3.850 Motion wasdenied, after which he filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on10/29/76. The Florida Supreme Court then consolidated Thompson’s DirectAppeal and his 3.850 Appeal. In those appeals, Thompson argued that hismotivation for pleading guilty was based on “a failure of communication or amisunderstanding of the facts.” On 06/23/77, in a consolidated opinion,the Florida Supreme Court reversed Thompson’s convictions and sentences, andremanded with instructions to allow Thompson to withdraw his guilty plea andproceed to trial.
On 02/27/78, Thompson filed a Petition for Writ ofCertiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 04/24/78.
Upon returning to the State Circuit Court, Thompson againentered a plea of guilty on all counts charged in the indictment and Thompsonwas again sentenced to death. On 12/11/78, Thompson filed a Direct Appealin the Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, he argued that the trialcourt erred in denying his request for additional psychiatric testing and indenying his request for a presentence investigation. Thompson alsocontended that the trial court erred by convening an advisory jury over hisobjection and then excluding jurors who opposed the death penalty. Thompson’s last contention was that the trial court ignored evidence ofdomination by Rocco Surace, Thompson’s accomplice. The Florida SupremeCourt found no merit to Thompson’s claims and affirmed the convictions andsentence of death on 07/03/80.
Thompson then filed a 3.850 Motion in the State CircuitCourt. That motion was denied and Thompson filed an appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. In that appeal, Thompson claimed that Rocco Surace “forcedhim to take full blame for the murder” and that his testifying at Surace’strial as being the dominant participant in the murder of Sally Ivester was theproduct of coercion. As such, Thompson claimed that his death sentencewas inappropriate because Surace, who he claimed was the “moving force” in themurder, was given a life sentence. On 02/11/82, The Florida Supreme Courtaffirmed the denial of Thompson’s 3.850 Motion.
Thompson next filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus inthe United States District Court, Southern District. He concurrentlyfiled a motion for a continuance, asserting that there were two claims notincluded in the petition. Thompson argued the inclusion of his claimsthat he involuntarily and unintelligibly entered a guilty plea and that hereceived ineffective assistance of counsel. Thompson’s attorney arguedthat these claims could not have been raised earlier because trial counsel hadrepresented Thompson in all previous post conviction proceedings. TheState opposed the Motion for Continuance as a “deliberate bypass” and an “abuseof writ.” At this point, the attorney general notified the court that theState waived exhaustion of the two unexhausted claims; however, the DistrictCourt rejected that waiver. The United States District Court then grantedThompson’s Motion for Continuance to allow Thompson to exhaust the two claimsat the state level. On 02/22/82, Thompson filed an additional 3.850 Motionin the State Circuit Court. The State then filed an interlocutory appealin the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing thegranting of the continuance and that the District Court erred “in not givingeffect to the State’s waiver of exhaustion.” There was an order enteredputting a stay on all proceedings at the state level pending the disposition ofthe Interlocutory Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals. TheUnited States Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision to grantThompson’s Motion for Continuance; however, the cause was remanded to theUnited States District Court to allow the court to consider accepting orrejecting the State’s waiver of Thompson’s two unexhausted claims as directedin the guidelines set forth by the Court of Appeals. On remand, theDistrict Court accepted the State’s waiver and, after an evidentiary hearing,denied Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Thompson then filedan appeal of that denial in the United States Court of Appeals for the EleventhCircuit. In that appeal, Thompson argued that he received ineffectiveassistance of counsel and that the trial court limited the consideration ofnon-statutory evidence heard during the sentencing phase. Thompson alsoclaimed that the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry into his competencyto stand trial and that his guilty plea was coerced through death threats fromhis codefendant Rocco Surace. On 04/10/86, the United States Court ofAppeals agreed with the District Court and affirmed the denial of Thompson’sPetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Thompson next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court, which was denied on 05/04/87.
Thompson then returned to the State level and filed a 3.850Motion in the State Circuit Court. That motion was denied, after whichThompson filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. Thompsonconcurrently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida SupremeCourt. On 09/09/87, the Florida Supreme Court, in a consolidated opinion,remanded Thompson’s case for resentencing under the dictates of Hitchcock v.Dugger. The high court deemed Thompson’s Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus to be moot in light of the remand granted by Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal.
The State then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari,which was denied on 03/21/88.
On 08/25/89, William Thompson was resentenced todeath. He then filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. In that appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by admitting the priortestimony of witness Barbara Savage when she could not be located to testify atthe resentencing. Thompson also argued that the trial court erred byfailing to grant his motion to strike the jury panel when the jury apparentlybecame concerned that Thompson, having served 13 years in prison already, couldbe released after just 12 years if given a life sentence. Thompson alsoclaimed that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduceThompson’s prior inconsistent testimony given at the trial of his codefendantRocco Surace. Lastly, Thompson contended that the trial court erred bypermitting autopsy photos as evidence and in its consideration and applicationof aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Courtagreed with Thompson that the admission of the autopsy photos was an error, butdeemed it harmless considering the testimony of Barbara Savage, the medicalexaminer, and other crime scene photos that were admitted into evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Thompson’s sentence of death on06/04/92. On 04/01/93, the court denied Thompson’s Motion for Rehearingand issued a clarified opinion addressing the issue of the jury instructiongiven for the heinous, atrocious, and cruel (HAC) aggravating factor asdictated by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Espinosa v. Florida[2]. Thompson arguedthat he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the HAC instructiongiven to his jury was defective. The Florida Supreme Court noted that,given the circumstances of this torturous murder, the application of the HACaggravating factor was justified under any definition and beyond a reasonabledoubt. The Florida Supreme Court again affirmed the sentence of death on04/01/93.
Thompson then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court, which was denied on11/08/93.
Thompson next filed a 3.850 Motion in the State CircuitCourt. That motion was denied, after which he filed an appeal in theFlorida Supreme Court. Thompson concurrently filed a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In a consolidated opinion,the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal anddenied his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 04/13/00.
On 06/13/01, Thompson filed another Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus in the United States District Court, which was dismissed on12/14/01. That court then granted, in part, a motion for certificate ofappealability. On 02/04/02, Thompson filed an appeal in the United StatesCourt of Appeals in which the denial of his Habeas was affirmed on 02/06/03.
Thompson filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court on06/18/03. The motion was denied on 11/12/03.
Thompson filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court on 08/01/03. The petition was granted on04/04/05. The United States Supreme Court vacated Thompson’s judgment andremanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals of the EleventhCircuit.
On 08/09/04, Thompson filed a 3.850 Motion in the circuitcourt. The motion was denied on 12/17/04.
On 02/15/05, Thompson filed a 3.850 Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. For failure to file the record on appeal in a timelymanner, jurisdiction for this 3.850 appeal was temporarily relinquished to theState Circuit Court on 04/17/06 (see below).
On remand from the USSC, the U.S. Court of Appeal, 11thCircuit vacated its 02/06/03 opinion and remanded to the USDC on 10/31/05.
On remand from the USCA, the U.S. District Court, SouthernDistrict denied the petition on 07/21/06.
Thompson filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Appealwith the U.S. Court of Appeal, 11th Circuit on 08/18/06. On 07/15/08, thecourt issued a Mandate affirming the judgment of the District Court.
Jurisdiction for FSC# 05-279 3.850 Motion was relinquishedto the State Circuit Court on 04/19/06. Thompson filed a 3.850 Motion inthe Circuit Court on 08/08/07, which was denied 08/28/07. A subsequentMotion for Rehearing was filed 09/11/07 and later denied on 09/19/07.
On 10/22/07, Thompson filed a 3.851 appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. Oral Arguments were held on 02/04/09. On 02/27/09, the FloridaSupreme Court reversed the lower court’s disposition and remanded for a newEvidentiary Hearing in the Circuit Court. A new Evidentiary Hearing washeld on 05/04/09. The Circuit Court issued an order denying the 3.851Motion on 05/21/09.
On 09/26/08, Thompson filed a Petition for Writ ofCertiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 03/09/09.
On 06/18/09, Thompson filed a 3.203 Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision of thecircuit court on 05/06/10. A motion for rehearing was filed on 05/24/10, and itwas denied on 07/09/10.
Thompson filed a 3.851 Motion in the State Circuit Court on11/29/10. This motion was denied on 02/08/11.
Thompson filed a 3.851 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Courton 03/16/11. This case is currently pending.
Institutional Adjustment:
| DATE | DAYS | VIOLATION | LOCATION |
| 12/09/78 | 30 | POSS OF WEAPONS | R.M.C.- MAIN UNIT |
| 03/26/80 | 10 | LYING TO STAFF | FSP |
| 03/03/85 | 0 | POSS OF UNAUTH BEV. | FSP |
| 04/04/86 | 10 | POSS OF NEGOTIABLES | FSP |
| 11/22/91 | 30 | DISORDERLY CONDUCT | FSP |
________________________________________________________________________
Written: 05/23/02 EW
Approved: 06/06/02 WS
Updated: 03/16/11 EMJ
[1] Hitchcock v. Dugger – United States SupremeCourt decision allowing the presentation and consideration of non-statutorymitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of a capital case.
[2] Espinosa v. Florida – The United StatesSupreme Court decision that found Florida’s heinous, atrocious, and cruel (HAC)aggravating factor to be vague and invalid.