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. 

MANSFIELD, Scott (W/M)

DC#    124460

DOB:  05/24/61

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Osceola County Case# 95-2078

Sentencing Judge:  The Honorable Belvin Perry, Jr.

Attorney, Trial:  Kathleen Flammia – Court-appointed

Attorney, Direct Appeal:  George D.E. Burden – AssistantPublic Defender

Attorney, Collateral Appeals:  David Gemmer & JamesL. Driscoll, Jr. – CCRC-M

Date of Offense:  10/15/95

Date of Sentence:  01/30/98

Circumstances of the Offense:

On 01/30/98, Scott Mansfield was convicted of first-degreemurder and sentenced to death.

Jesus Alfonso and Sara Robles went to Rosie’s Pub on thenight of 10/14/95.  According to Alfonso’s testimony, he left the pubaround 1:30 a.m., but Robles stayed behind to play a game of pool with a manmatching Mansfield’s description.  Karen Hill, the bartender at the pub,told police that Robles, Mansfield and William Finnerman left the pub a littleafter 2:00 a.m.  Finnerman testified that he left the pub with Mansfieldand Robles around 2:00 a.m. and last saw them around 3:00 a.m. 

According the testimony of a night clerk at Winn-Dixie, agrocery store located in the same shopping center as the pub, Robles andMansfield went into the store and purchased some items during the early morninghours of 10/15/95.  The clerk also stated she saw Robles and Mansfieldoutside of Winn-Dixie during her break at 3:00 p.m. 

On the morning of 10/15/95, Robles’ body was found in agrassy area next to the Winn-Dixie.  When her body was discovered, herclothing was moved to reveal her breasts and pelvis area.  Robles’ breastsand genitals were mutilated.  Receipts from Winn-Dixie, food stamps, and apager were found around Robles’ body.  According to the testimony of themedical examiner, Robles’ cause of death was asphyxia due to airwaycompression, which resulted from a blunt force trauma to her neck.  Themedical examiner explained that the perpetrator straddled Robles on the ground,strangling her with one hand while the other hand was used to press an objectdown on top of her lower neck, causing her trachea to collapse.  Theexaminer concluded that prior to Robles’ death, she was conscious for a fewminutes, struggling for air, and then fell unconscious; her breasts andgenitals were mutilated while she was unconscious.

Investigators of the scene discovered that the pager foundnear Robles’ body belonged to Mansfield.  As investigators werequestioning Mansfield, they noticed fresh scratches on his knees andhands.  Mansfield admitted he went to the pub and Winn-Dixie withRobles.  Police arrested Mansfield for the suspected murder ofRobles.  During the arrest, police noticed Mansfield was wearing a ringwith a “Grim Reaper” design.

The day after his arrest, Mansfield’s brother called andinvited the police to the apartment they shared.  Food stamps, a knife andsheath, some clothing, and a towel were found in Mansfield’s room. Officers questioned Mansfield’s ten-year-old niece.  She recalled seeingMansfield, during the early hours of 10/15/95, soaking wet, wearing only hisshorts.  The niece also noticed possible blood stains on his shorts. Mansfield told his niece that he had gone for a swim at a pool complex.

During his indictment on 10/20/95, the medical examinerfurther stated that the injury pattern on Robles’ neck matched the pattern ofMansfield’s “Grim Reaper” ring, which he wore at the time of his arrest. Mike Derrick, Mansfield’s jail cell roommate, testified that Mansfieldconfessed to the murder during a conversation that the two had.

Trial Summary:

10/20/95         Mansfield was indicted as follows:

                                   Count I:           First-Degree Murder (Sara Robles)

11/10/97         Jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts of the indictment

11/12/97         Jury recommended death by a vote of 12-0

01/30/98         Mansfield was sentenced as follows:

                                   Count I:           First-Degree Murder (Sara Robles) – Death

Appeal Summary:

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 92,412

758 So. 2d 636

02/20/98         Appeal filed

03/30/00         FSC affirmed conviction and sentence

05/01/00         Mandate issued

11/18/00         Pro se motion for rehearing filed

01/18/01         Rehearing denied

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC# 00-8786

532 U.S. 998; 121 S. Ct. 1663; 149 L. Ed. 2d 644 (2001)

06/28/00         Petition filed

04/23/01         Petition denied

State Circuit Court – 3.851 Motion

CC# 95-2078

06/15/01         Motion filed

04/19/02         Amended Motion filed

09/06/01         Motion denied

Florida Supreme Court – 3.851 Appeal

FSC# 03-1352

911 So.2d 1160

08/04/03         Appeal filed

07/07/05         FSC affirmed trial court’s denial of 3.851 Motion

09/15/05         Rehearing denied

10/03/05         Mandate issued

Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus

FSC# 04-331

911 So.2d 1160

02/26/04         Petition filed

07/07/05         Petition denied

09/15/05         Rehearing denied

10/03/05         Mandate issued

United States District Court, Middle District –Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC# 05-1466

601 F.Supp.2d 1267

10/03/05         Petition filed

02/26/09         Habeas will issue on Claim 1 unless the State of Florida conducts new trialwithin 120 days

03/06/09         State’s Motion to Alter Judgment filed

03/09/09         Supplement to State’s Motion to Alter Judgment filed

04/22/09         Motion to Alter Judgment denied

Factors Contributing to the Delay in Imposition ofSentence:

Mansfield’s Direct Appeal was pending for three years beforethe Florida Supreme Court rendered a decision. 

Case Information:

Mansfield filed a Direct Appeal on 02/28/98 and numerousissues were raised.  First, Mansfield claimed that his counsel wasineffective in failing to accurately communicate the State’s plea offer afterMansfield was found guilty at trial.  Second, he claimed the court erredin denying Mansfield’s motion to suppress statements made by the investigatorsprior to his arrest.  Third, Mansfield claimed the court erred in findingthe heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator.  Fourth, he claimed the deathsentence is not proportionate.  Fifth, he claimed the court erred in itsconsideration of the mitigating factors.  Sixth, Mansfield claimed thecourt erred in finding no discovery violation for the State’s failure to listdemonstrative evidence introduced at the trial.  Seventh, he claimed thecourt erred in admitting the knife and sheath as evidence.  Eighth, heclaimed the court erred by admitting photographs of the victim’s body. Ninth, Mansfield claimed the court erred in permitting victim impactevidence.  And finally, he claimed the court erred in rejectingMansfield’s special request of jury instruction on the heinous, atrocious, orcruel aggravator.  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Mansfield’sconviction and death sentence on 03/30/00. 

Mansfield filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Supreme Court on 06/28/00, which was denied on 04/23/01.

On 06/15/01, Mansfield filed a 3.851 Motion to the CircuitCourt.  An amended Motion was filed on 04/19/02.  The Motion wasdenied on 09/06/01.

Mansfield filed a 3.851 Appeal to the Florida Supreme Courton 08/04/03.  On 07/07/05, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial ofthe 3.851 Motion because Mansfield had failed to raise any issue with anymerit.  Mansfield filed a motion for rehearing on 07/21/05, which wasdenied on 09/15/05.  The mandate was issued on 10/03/05.

On 02/26/04, Mansfield filed a Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus to the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied on 07/07/05. Mansfield filed a motion for rehearing on 07/21/05, which was denied on09/15/05.  The mandate was issued on 10/03/05.

On 10/03/05, Mansfield filed a Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus to the United States District Court, Middle District.  On 02/26/09,Mansfield’s Habeas Petition was denied with prejudice on Claims 2-15. However, Habeas will issue on Claim 1 unless the State of Florida conducts anew trial in the Circuit Court within 120 days of order issuance.  On03/06/09, the State filed a Motion to Alter Judgment and then a Supplement tothis motion was filed on 03/09/09.  The Motion to Alter Judgment wasdenied on 04/22/09.

Institutional Adjustment:

________________________________________________________________________

Report Date:  11/05/04          NRC

Approved:      11/05/04          JFL

Updated:        09/16/09          EMJ