Florida Supreme Court Justices Refuse to Halt Jimenez Execution
The justices, in a unanimous decision, denied a motion to stay the execution of Jose Antonia Jimenez, 55, who was convicted in the 1992 murder of a Miami-Dade County woman.
December 13, 2018 at 01:13 PM
3 minute read
Rejecting what it described as a “novel” argument about a voter-approved constitutional amendment, the Florida Supreme Court refused to halt the scheduled Thursday evening execution of death row inmate Jose Antonio Jimenez.
The justices, in a unanimous decision, denied a motion to stay the execution of Jimenez, 55, who was convicted in the 1992 murder of a Miami-Dade County woman. Jimenez also had two cases pending Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, according to an online docket. The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday at Florida State Prison.
The Florida Supreme Court decision dealt with arguments by Jimenez's attorneys that he should be spared execution because of a constitutional amendment that voters approved Nov. 6. Part of the amendment changed what is known as the “Savings Clause” of the Florida Constitution, a more than century-old provision dealing with how revisions in criminal laws should be applied to older crimes.
The Savings Clause historically has required that criminal laws in effect at the time crimes are committed govern the sentences that are imposed. But the November ballot measure, Amendment 11, included a change in the clause. It allowed revisions to criminal laws to affect sentences for older crimes.
Jimenez's attorneys contended that the amendment is important in his case because of changes in Florida's death-penalty sentencing laws in 2017. The sentencing laws had to be rewritten because of a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the state's death-penalty sentencing structure was unconstitutional because it gave too much power to judges, instead of juries.
With the passage of Amendment 11, Jimenez's attorneys argued the revised laws should be applied to his case, and that they should prevent his execution. In part, the revised laws require juries to unanimously find at least one “aggravating” factor to help justify a death sentence, a tougher standard for prosecutors than was in place when Jimenez was sentenced to death.
But the justices flatly rejected the arguments, saying that the constitutional amendment does not take effect until Jan. 8 and that, “even if the amendment were in effect, it does not change the law applicable to Jimenez's conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death.”
The four-page decision called the arguments by Jimenez's attorneys a “novel assertion” and said lawmakers will have authority to determine how to apply the change in the Savings Clause.
The justices said the change means “that there will no longer be any provision in the Florida Constitution that would prohibit the Legislature from applying an amended criminal statute retroactively to pending prosecutions or sentences. However, nothing in our Constitution does or will require the Legislature to do so, and the repeal of the prohibition will not require that they do so.”
Jimenez was convicted of killing Phyllis Minas, 63, during a burglary. Neighbors tried to enter the home through an unlocked front door after hearing Minas' cries, but Jimenez slammed the door shut, locked it and fled by going onto a bedroom balcony, according to court documents.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250