Court upholds Timely Justice Act.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the 2013 Legislature's "Timely Justice Act," aimed at speeding up death penalty appeals, does not "facially violate the constitution."

"Nothing in the Act nor in this opinion even remotely hints at the possibility that the Act has modified or altered this court's ability to stay capital proceedings," Justice Fred Lewis wrote in a June 12 opinion in Dane P. Abdool, et al., vs. Pam Bondi, etc., et al., Case No. SC 131123.

Chief Justice Ricky Polston and Justices Barbara Pariente, Charles Canady, Jorge Larbarga, and James Perry concurred. Justice Peggy Quince concurred in the result only. Justice Pariente expanded in a concurring opinion, in which Labarga and Perry concurred.

"I am confident that, as has already been the case after the Act took effect in July 2013, the implementation of the Act will not affect this court's ability to review any claims either pending at the time of, or raised after the issuance of, a death warrant," Pariente wrote.

"If a defendant believes that his or her constitutional rights have been violated or that complete judicial review has not occurred, there is certainly nothing in this court's opinion upholding the facial constitutionality of the Act in this case that precludes a defendant from raising an as-applied constitutional challenge to the validity of the Act, and there is nothing in the Act that prevents this court from issuing a stay of execution if necessary."

In the main 45-page opinion, Justice Lewis stressed that the court's review was limited.

"In a facial challenge, we consider only the text of the statute, not its specific application to a particular set of circumstances," Lewis wrote. "For a statute to be held facially unconstitutional, the challenger must demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists in which the statute can be constitutionally applied."

The petitioners--all inmates who have been sentenced to death--filed an emergency petition requesting the Florida Supreme Court to enjoin the enforcement of four sections of the act and to declare those sections unconstitutional:

* Section 27.703(1) Conflict of Interest and Substitute Counsel

The amendment imposes a more stringent standard for conflict of interest with a client, requiring an actual conflict and places the responsibility of determining whether an actual conflict exists with a judge.

* Section 27.7045 Constitutionally Deficient Representation

The act creates a new provision to disqualify...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT