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.
BOOKER, Stephen Todd (B/M)
DC # 044049
DOB: 09/01/53
Eighth Judicial Circuit, Alachua County, Case #77-2332 CF
Sentencing Judge: The Honorable John J. Crews
Resentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert P. Cates
Trial Attorney: Stephen Bernstein – Assistant PublicDefender
Attorney, Direct Appeal: Stephen Bernstein – AssistantPublic Defender
Attorney, Resentencing Direct Appeal: David A. Davis –Assistant Public Defender
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Harry Brody – Registry
Date of Offense: 11/09/77
Date of Sentence: 10/20/78
Date ofResentencing: 06/25/98
Circumstances of Offense:
Stephen Todd Booker was convicted and sentenced to death forthe murder of 94-year-old Lorine DemossHarmon on 11/09/77.
The elderly victim was found in her Gainesville apartmentwith two large knives embedded in her body. Medical examiners reportedthe cause of death as being a loss of blood due to numerous stab wounds in theupper body region. Medical examiners also discovered blood and semen inthe victim’s vaginal tract, concluding that sexual intercourse had taken placeprior to the murder. Harmon’s apartment appeared to be thoroughlysearched, dresser drawers were pulled out and their contents scattered about.
Investigators recovered fingerprints, footprints and hair atthe crime scene that linked Booker to the murder. After his arrest, Bookerbegan speaking as an alternate personality named “Aniel.” Upon questioning, Aniel implicated Stephen (Booker)in the crimes.
Additional Information:
Booker was convicted of robbery in 1974 and was on“Mandatory Conditional Release” when he murdered Harmon. Following hismurder conviction, Booker was charged and convicted of aggravated battery forburning a correctional officer at Florida State Prison in 1981. On06/08/81, he was sentenced to 15 years for that offense.
Booker’s sanity was in question from the time he wasarrested through the trial proceedings. The court appointed numerouspsychiatrists to examine Booker, and he was found to be sane when he committedthe murder and competent to stand trial. Booker was not diagnosed withDissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as Multiple PersonalityDisorder), and experts believe that the “Aniel”alternate personality Booker displayed after arrest was fabricated,self-serving behavior.
Trial Summary:
11/10/77 Defendant arrested.
12/02/77 Defendant indicted on:
Count I: First-DegreeMurder
Count II: Sexual Battery
Count III: Burglary
12/13/77 Defendant entered a plea of “not guilty” on all counts.
06/21/78 The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.
06/22/78 Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 9 to 3 majority, voted for the deathpenalty.
10/20/78 The defendant was sentenced as followed:
Count I: First-DegreeMurder - Death
Count II: Sexual Battery – 55 years
Count III: Burglary - 30 years
01/14/91 The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the DistrictCourt’s decision to grant Booker’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and hiscase was remanded
forresentencing.
03/27/98 Upon advisory sentencing, the new jury, by an 8 to 4 majority, voted for thedeath penalty.
06/25/98 The defendant was resentenced as followed:
Count I: First-DegreeMurder - Death
Count II: Sexual Battery – 55 years
Count III: Burglary – 30 years
Appeal Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC #55,568
379 So. 2d 910
11/21/78 Appeal filed.
03/19/81 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence of death.
06/02/81 Rehearing denied.
08/14/81 Mandate issued.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #81-5086
454 U.S. 957
07/20/81 Petition filed.
10/19/81 Petition denied.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #77-2332
04/13/82 Motion and application for stay of execution filed.
04/14/82 Motion and stay denied without evidentiary hearing.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC #61, 947
413 So. 2d 756
04/15/82 Appeal filed.
04/19/82 Denial affirmed.
United States District Court, Northern District –Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
USDC #82-831
04/13/82 Petition and application for stay of execution filed.
04/19/82 USDC denied the application for a stay of execution orally.
04/20/82 USDC denied the petition.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – HabeasCorpus Appeal
USCA #82-5468
703 F. 2d 1251
04/19/82 Appeal filed.
04/25/83 USCA affirmed the denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
06/06/83 Rehearing denied.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #83-5181
464 U.S. 917
08/01/83 Petition filed.
10/17/83 Petition denied.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motionand Application for Stay of Execution
CC #77-2332
11/08/83 Motion and application for a stay of execution filed.
11/14/83 Evidentiary hearing held to explore Booker’s claim of ineffective counsel.
11/16/83 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal, Petition forWrit of Habeas Corpus, Petition for Writ of Mandamus
FSC #64,517, 64,518, 64,519
441 So. 2d 148
11/15/83 3.850 Appeal filed.
11/15/83 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed.
11/15/83 Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed.
11/17/83 FSC affirmed the Circuit Court’s denial of the 3.850 Motion and stay ofexecution. FSC concurrently denied the Petition for Writ
ofHabeas Corpus and the Petition for Writ of
Mandamus. No rehearing allowed.
12/14/83 Mandate issued.
United States District Court, Northern District –Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
USDC #83-0103
11/16/83 Petition filed.
04/17/84 Petition denied.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – HabeasCorpus Appeal
USCA #84-3306
764 F.2d 1371
05/07/84 Appeal filed.
06/21/85 USCA affirmed the denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
08/09/85 Rehearing denied.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #85-5486
474 U.S. 975
09/25/85 Petition filed.
11/04/85 Petition denied.
Circuit Court – Motion to Reopen Previous 3.850 andApplication for a Stay of Execution
CC #77-2332
09/26/85 Motion and application filed.
09/26/85 Evidentiary hearing granted to consider reopening Booker’s second 3.850 Motionand stay granted.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion and Application for Stayof Execution
CC #77-2332
01/10/86 The trial court held an evidentiary hearing to consider reopening Booker’ssecond 3.850 Motion that claimed ineffectiveness of
counsel.
01/27/86 The trial court denied all relief.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC #68,239
503 So. 2d 888
01/29/86 Appeal filed.
01/05/87 FSC affirmed the decision reached by the trial court.
03/23/87 Rehearing denied.
04/22/87 Mandate issued.
United States District Court, Northern District –Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
USDC #86-0031
02/25/86 Petition filed.
05/22/86 Petition denied.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – HabeasCorpus Appeal
USCA #86-3411
825 F.2d 281
06/24/86 Appeal filed.
08/05/87 USCA affirmed the denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
09/25/87 Rehearing denied.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus
FSC #70,928
520 So. 2d 246
07/29/87 Petition filed.
01/14/88 Petition denied.
03/16/88 Rehearing denied.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #87-6487
485 U.S. 1015
02/22/88 Petition filed.
04/18/88 Petition denied.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #87-6644
486 U.S. 1061
03/18/88 Petition filed.
06/13/88 Petition denied.
United States District Court, Northern District –Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
USDC #88-40228
06/13/88 Petition filed.
09/16/88 Petition granted.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – HabeasCorpus Appeal
USCA #88-3751
922 F.2d 633
09/16/88 Appeal filed by the State.
01/14/91 USCA affirmed the District Court’s decision to grant Booker’s Habeas Petition.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #90-1778
502 U.S. 900
05/14/91 Petition filed by the State.
10/07/91 Petition denied.
United States District Court, Northern District –Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b)
USDC #88-40228
04/29/93 Independent action filed by the State pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b).
03/21/94 Action denied.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Appealof Rule 60(b)
USCA #94-2536
90 F.3d 440
04/22/94 Appeal filed by the State.
07/17/96 USCA affirmed the denial of the State’s action pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC #93,422
773 So. 2d 1079
07/13/98 Appeal filed.
10/05/00 Appeal denied.
12/22/00 Rehearing denied.
01/22/01 Mandate issued.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari
USSC #00-8769
532 U.S. 1033
02/28/01 Petition filed.
05/14/01 Petition denied.
Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #77-2332
09/26/01 Motion filed.
05/18/04 Motion amended.
01/18/05 Motion amended.
09/16/05 Evidentiary Hearing held and motion denied orally.
12/01/05 Final order denying motion.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal
FSC# 06-121
969 So.2d 186
01/20/06 Appeal filed.
08/30/07 Denial affirmed.
9/18/07 Motion for rehearing.
11/01/07 Rehearing denied.
11/19/07 Mandate issued.
United States District Court, Northern District –Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
USDC# 08-143
07/07/08 Petition filed.
10/05/10 Petitiondenied.
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – HabeasCorpus Appeal
USCA # 10-14966P
(Pending)
10/29/10 Appealfiled.
Warrants:
03/21/82 Death Warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.
04/20/82 United States Courts of Appeals for the 11th Circuit granted a stay of
execution.
10/27/83 Death Warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.
11/17/83 United States District Court, Northern District, granted a stay of
execution.
08/22/85 Death Warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.
09/09/85 United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit granted a stay of
execution.
09/23/85 United States Supreme Court vacated the stay of execution.
09/26/85 State Circuit Court granted a stay of execution.
08/11/88 Death Warrant signed by Governor Bob Martinez.
09/16/88 United States District Court, Northern District, granted Booker’s Petition
for Writ of HabeasCorpus and remanded the case for resentencing.
Clemency:
02/17/82 Clemency hearing held (denied).
Factors Contributing to the Delay in the Imposition ofthe Sentence:
Stephen Booker has been on death row since 1978. Following his initial sentencing, Booker filed an onslaught of motions andappeals seeking to vacate his death sentence. Booker has even beencharged with an abuse of writ for unduly filing petitions without bringing up anynew points or arguments. Of the vast number of motions and appeals filedby Booker, none have taken an inordinate amount of time to dispose of.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuitaffirmed the District Court’s decision to grant Booker’s Habeas Petition in1991. Between 1991-1998, there were numerous motions filed in the StateCircuit Court regarding Booker’s resentencing. Specifically, the motionsaddressed the potential jurors, the evidence to be presented during the penaltyphase, and the constitutionality of certain Florida Statutes. Since hewas resentenced to death on 06/25/98, Booker has begun the appellate processagain. His Direct Appeal after resentencing took less than three years tocomplete, but his 3.850 Motion was pending for four years.
Case Information:
On 11/21/78, Booker filed his initial Direct Appeal in theFlorida Supreme Court. In the appeal, Booker argued that the court erred duringthe penalty phase when it allowed the prosecutor to ask incriminating questionsbased on privileged information from psychiatric reports. He alsocontended that the court erred in permitting a prejudicial and graphicphotograph of the victim to be introduced as evidence. Booker sought thereversal of his conviction of burglary and claimed that the trial court erredin its application of non-statutory aggravating factors. The FloridaSupreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence of death on 03/19/81 andthe mandate was issued on 08/14/81.
On 07/20/81, Booker filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorariin the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 10/19/81.
The defendant then filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment andSentence (3.850) in the Circuit Court on 04/13/82. Booker contended therewere revelations in the case based on new conclusions drawn by a psychiatristthat he suffered from a psychiatric disease at the time of the murder. That motion was subsequently denied on 04/14/82, after which, Booker filed anappeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 04/15/82. On 04/19/82, the FloridaSupreme Court issued its opinion affirming the denial of the 3.850.
Booker proceeded to file a Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus and an application for stay of execution in the United States DistrictCourt, Northern District, on 04/13/82. The District Court denied the stayorally on 04/19/82 and the petition on 04/20/82. Next, Booker filed anappeal of the denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on 04/19/82. Bookercontended that his right against self-incrimination was not upheld whenprosecutors presented privileged information from psychiatric reports duringthe penalty phase of the trial. Booker also argued that the introductionof his prior violent behavior as evidence allowed the jury to considernon-statutory aggravating factors. At the same time, the court limitedthe non-statutory mitigating circumstances that the jury heard. TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the denial of thePetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 04/25/83.
The defendant again filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorariin the United States Supreme Court on 08/01/83. The petition was deniedon 10/17/83
Booker filed a 3.850 Motion and an application for a stay ofexecution in the State Circuit Court on 11/08/83. On 11/14/83 anevidentiary hearing was held to explore Booker’s claim of ineffectivecounsel. The motion was denied on 11/16/83. The defendant appealedthe denial of his 3.850 Motion in the Florida Supreme Court on 11/15/83. The Florida Supreme court affirmed the denial of the 3.850 Appeal and the stayof execution on 11/17/83. Booker concurrently filed a Petition for Writof Habeas Corpus and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which were also denied on11/17/83.
On 11/16/83, Booker filed another Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus in the United States District Court, Northern District. Thepetition was denied on 04/17/84, after which Booker filed an appeal of thatdecision in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on05/07/84. The court deemed Booker’s claim of ineffective counsel to be anabuse of writ because he purposefully delayed the assertion when it could havebeen introduced in his first petition. Several other claims were barredby procedural default, as they, too, should have been brought up in Booker’sDirect Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. The United States Court ofAppeal for the 11th Circuit affirmed the denial of the Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus on 06/21/85.
A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed on 09/25/85 andsubsequently denied on 11/04/85.
Booker then submitted a request to reopen his second 3.850Motion and an application for a stay of execution in the State Circuit Court on09/26/85. The court granted an evidentiary hearing to consider reopeningBooker’s motion and a stay on 09/26/85.
Booker implored the State Circuit Court to reopen his second3.850 Motion, which claimed ineffectiveness of counsel. Booker insistedthat the court re-examine the case because the decision they reached was basedupon false information. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on01/10/86, and concluded that Booker could not adequately prove that fraud wascommitted upon the court. The trial court also noted that the filing ofsuccessive motions without introducing any new claims constituted abuse ofpost-conviction relief. The court, therefore, denied all relief on01/27/86. The defendant then appealed the decision not to reopen hissecond 3.850 Motion to the Florida Supreme Court on 01/29/86. The FloridaSupreme Court affirmed the denial of relief on 01/05/87.
Booker again filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in theUnited States District Court, Northern Circuit, on 02/25/86. Booker alsofiled action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Bookerasked the court to vacate the denials of his first and second federal habeaspetitions in lieu of fraudulent testimony given by Stephen Bernstein, thedefendant’s prior attorney. The court denied Booker’s petition on05/22/86. Booker swiftly filed an appeal of the decision in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on 06/24/86. Since Booker couldnot convincingly prove that Bernstein lied to the court, the United StatesCourt of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s finding that Booker’s thirdPetition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was indeed an abuse of writ. The courtaffirmed the denial of relief on 08/05/87.
Booker filed his second state Habeas Petition in the FloridaSupreme Court on 07/29/87. Booker petitioned that he was entitled torelief because the jury was not instructed to consider non-statutory mitigatingfactors during advisory sentencing proceedings. The Florida Supreme Courtruled that even though the jury was not given proper instruction regarding theconsideration of non-statutory mitigating evidence, such an error was harmlessin light of the numerous statutory aggravating circumstances. The FloridaSupreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 01/14/88.
On 02/22/88, Booker filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari inthe United States Supreme Court from the United States Circuit Court of Appealsfor the 11th Circuit. The petition was denied on 04/18/88.
On 03/18/88, Booker filed another Petition for Writ ofCertiorari in the United States Supreme Court from the Florida SupremeCourt. That petition was denied on 06/13/88.
On 06/13/88, the defendant filed an additional Petition orWrit of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court, NorthernDistrict. Booker believed he was entitled to relief under Hitchcock v. Dugger[1]. Specifically, Booker claimed that a Hitchcock error was committed during thepenalty phase of his trial when the prosecutor informed the jury that they wereonly to consider statutory mitigating circumstances. Booker alsocontended that his defense counsel would have presented even more mitigatingevidence on his behalf had his counsel not believed that the law limited themto statutory evidence. The United States District Court, NorthernDistrict, found the Hitchcock error not to be harmless, as there was no way ofpredicting what a jury would have recommended if they had heard all mitigatingcircumstances. The court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpuson 09/16/88. On 09/16/88, the State filed an appeal of the DistrictCourt’s ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11thCircuit. The court affirmed the District Court’s granting of Booker’sHabeas Petition on 01/14/91.
On 05/14/91, the State filed a Petition for Writ ofCertiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied on10/07/91.
On 04/29/93, the State filed an independent action in theUnited States District Court, Northern District, pursuant to Federal Rule ofProcedure 60(b) urging the court to vacate its judgment and reinstate Booker’sdeath sentence. They argued that due to the change in law under Brecht,[2] the State’s burden ofproof had been met. The court denied the State’s request on 03/21/94,citing that the requirements for granting a motion under Federal Rule ofProcedure 60(b) demand “extraordinary circumstances,” and Booker’s case did notmeet such requirements. The State appealed this ruling in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on 04/22/94. The courtaffirmed the denial of relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b) on07/17/96.
On 06/25/98, after a new penalty phase before a new jury,Stephen Booker was again sentenced to death for the 11/09/77 murder of Lorine Demoss Harmon.
After resentencing, Booker filed his Direct Appeal in theFlorida Supreme Court on 07/13/98. Booker argued that the court erred byfailing to instruct the jury on the consecutive sentences he must serve due toprior convictions. Booker also asserted that the State used a peremptoryto discriminatorily remove a potential black woman from the new jury. Lastly, Booker claimed that the death penalty was disproportional in his case,and that to execute him after having spent 20-plus years on death row wouldconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. On 10/05/00 the Florida SupremeCourt affirmed the new death sentence imposed by the State Circuit Court.
Booker filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the UnitedStates Supreme Court on 02/28/01. The petition was denied on 05/14/01.
On 09/26/01, Booker filed a 3.850 Motion to Vacate Judgmentand Sentence in the State Circuit Court and amended the motion on 05/18/04 and01/18/05. An Evidentiary Hearing was held on 09/16/05, and the motion wasdenied on 12/01/05.
Booker filed a 3.850 Motion Appeal in the Florida SupremeCourt on 01/20/06 that was denied on 08/30/07. On 9/18/07 a motion forrehearing was filed, and was denied on 11/01/07. A mandate was issued on11/19/07.
Booker filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with theUnited States District Court on 07/07/08. This petition was denied on 10/05/10.On 10/29/10, Booker filed an appeal of the District Court’s ruling in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Institutional Adjustment:
DATE DAYS VIOLATION LOCATION
-------- ---- ---------------------------- -------------------
12/09/78 10 POSS OFCONTRABAND FSP
09/29/80 0 ASSAULTS OR ATTEMPT FSP
10/15/80 90 POSS OFWEAPONS FSP
05/01/81 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT FSP
06/09/81 0 DISRESP.TOOFFICIALS FSP
09/08/82 60 DISOBEYINGORDER CENTRALOFFICE
02/08/83 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT CENTRAL OFFICE
03/25/86 15 UNARMEDASSAULT FSP
03/08/87 15 POSS OF UNAUTH BEV. FSP
02/11/88 30 FIGHTING FSP
10/29/88 0 SPOKENTHREATS FSP
07/26/96 0 UNAUTH USE OF DRUGS FSP
11/03/96 0 SEX ACTS FSP
________________________________________________________________________
11/19/01 – ew
12/03/01 – approved – ws
11/04/10 – updated – jjk
[1] The decision found in Hitchcock v. Dugger allowed non-statutory evidence to be heard duringsentencing proceedings.
[2] The Supreme Court adopted a new standardunder Brecht v. Abrahamson making it less difficult for the State to prove thata constitutional violation did not influence a petitioner’s case.