IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 13-425 LARRY E. MANN, Appellant, Death Warrant Signed: Execution v. Scheduled For April 10, 2013 At 6:00 pm STATE OF FLORIDA Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARIE-LOUISE SAMUELS PARMER Assistant CCRC Florida Bar No. 0005584 MARIA E. DELIBERATO Assistant CCRC Florida Bar No. 664251 Capital Collateral Regional Counsel – Middle Region 3801 Corporex Park Dr., Suite 210 Tampa, FL 33619 (813)740-3544 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an appeal of the circuit court’s summary denial of Mr. Mann’s Successive Motion for Post Conviction Relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(h)(5) and 3.851(e)(2). Citations shall be as follows: The record on appeal from Mr. Mann’s first trial proceedings in 1981 shall be referred to as “TR 1981” followed by the appropriate volume and page numbers. The record on appeal from Mr. Mann’s 1990 resentencing shall be referred to as “TR 1990” followed by the appropriate volume and page numbers. The post conviction record on appeal shall be referred to as “PCR” followed by the appropriate volume and page numbers. The record on appeal from the denial of the post conviction proceedings after the warrant was signed shall be referred to as “WARRANT PCR” followed by the appropriate volume and page numbers. All other references will be self-explanatory or otherwise explained herein. i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Mr. Mann has been sentenced to death and is scheduled to be executed in 16 days. The resolution of issues involved in this action will determine whether he lives or dies. This Court has not hesitated to allow oral argument in other capital cases in a similar posture. A full opportunity to air the issues through oral argument would be appropriate in this case, given the seriousness of the claims at issue and the stakes involved. Mr. Mann, through counsel, respectfully requests this Court grant oral argument. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................6 Juror Unanimty Claim .....................................................................................6 Arbitrary Warrant ............................................................................................8 Public Records ...............................................................................................10 Florida Department of Corrections .....................................................10 Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office .............................................13 Office of the Governor’s .....................................................................14 Office of the Attorney General............................................................16 Florida Senate District 20 and Florida State House District 65 ..........17 Martinez Claim ..............................................................................................17 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................18 STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................21 iii ARGUMENT I .........................................................................................................21 FLORIDA’S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE, WHICH ALLOWS A NON- UNANIMOUS VERDICT, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND VIOLATES EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY WHICH MARK THE PROGRESS OF A MATURING SOCIETY. THE POST CONVICTION COURT ERRED IN SUMMARILY DENYING THIS CLAIM. ............................................................21 A. Societal standards show that Florida is an outlier with respect to its capital sentencing statute. .............................................................................25 B. Controlling precedents and the Court=s understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment=s text, history, meaning and purpose demonstrates that Florida=s non-unanimous jury requirement does not comport with the 8th Amendment=s evolving standards of decency ..............................................33 C. Florida is also an outlier in the international arena by allowing juror majority death sentences and with its stunning increase in number of death sentences handed down ................................................................................37 ARGUMENT II .......................................................................................................44 FLORIDA’S DEATH WARRANT SELECTION PROCESS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIFTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. THE POST CONVICTION COURT ERRED IN SUMMARILY DENYING THIS CLAIM .................................................................................................................................44 A. The Arbitrary imposition of the death penalty is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Florida’s arbitrary warrant selection process is akin to the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty and is similarly prohibited by the Eighth Amendment .......................................................................................45 B. Florida’s warrant selection process lacks any meaningful safeguards and is violative of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ......................................................................................................................49 C. The lower court’s rulings failed to squarely address Mr. Mann’s claims and/or are incorrect as a matter of law .........................................................56 iv ARGUMENT III ......................................................................................................59 MR. MANN HAS BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED, IN VIOLATION OF FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3.852, FLA. STAT. § 119, AND BRADY V. MARYLAND. ........................................................59 ARGUMENT IV .....................................................................................................64 INITIAL REVIEW POST CONVICTION COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY RAISE AND OBTAIN A HEARING ON A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL AT MANN=S RE-SENTENCING TRIAL FOR FAILING TO PRESENT MITIGATION. MARTINEZ V. RYAN MARKS A TECTONIC SHIFT IN THE LANDSCAPE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ESTABLISHED A RULE IN EQUITY TO ALLOW FOR THE PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS THAT WERE PROCEDURALLY BARRED DUE TO INITIAL REVIEW COUNSEL=S DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE. THIS COURT SHOULD EXTEND THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OF MARTINEZ TO STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. ..................................................................64 CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT ..............................................................68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................68 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................70 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allen v. U.S. , 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154 (1896) ...................................................36 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 108 S.Ct. 546 . (1988) ..............................35 Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880 (1948) ...................................36 Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223, 98 S.Ct. 1029 (1978) .........................................34 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) ..................................................................28 Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) .............................................................................58 Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382 (1980)..........................................23 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) ........................................................... 20, 59 Cleveland Board. Of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) .....................53 Cooper v. Rimmer, 379 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.2004) ....................................................23 Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 44 S.Ct. 13 (1923) ................................................40 Duckett v. State, 918 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2005) ............................................................60 Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 (1992) .............................................................48 Ferguson v. State, 101 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2012) .........................................................57 Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) ...............................................................53 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) ............................................. 45, 46, 49, 58 Fuster v. State, 664 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) ..................................................39 vi Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197 (1977) ........................................24