'Xbox Murders' Add to Florida's Death Penalty Debate
As courts across the state scramble to figure out how to apply a new death-penalty law, the resentencing of two men convicted in a notorious Volusia County case known as the "Xbox murders" adds to the questions.
September 26, 2023 at 01:12 PM
4 minute read
Cases and CourtsAs courts across Florida have scrambled this year to figure out how to apply a new death-penalty law, the resentencing of two men convicted in a notorious Volusia County case known as the "Xbox murders" added to the questions.
Jury selection had started in April in the resentencing of Troy Victorino and Jerone Hunter when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law, which eliminated a requirement for unanimous jury recommendations before defendants could be sentenced to death. Under the new law, death sentences can be imposed after 8-4 jury recommendations.
The law has touched off widespread litigation and questions about whether the unanimity requirement should apply to older cases, such as the case of Victorino and Hunter who needed to be resentenced in the 2004 murders. But the Volusia case had the added complication of being in the midst of jury selection when the law took effect.
Volusia County Circuit Judge Randell Rowe ruled that the unanimity requirement should apply, saying that using the new law would violate due-process rights of Victorino and Hunter. Prosecutors appealed, and a panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal overturned Rowe's ruling.
The panel on Friday followed up by issuing a detailed opinion about why it concluded the new law should apply after jury selection started.
"In sum, this record shows that the change to (the law) was entirely foreseeable to all parties," said the opinion, written by Judge Harvey Jay and joined fully by Judge Brian Lambert and partially by Judge John Harris. "The record suggests that both sides were cognizant of the impact the new law would have on this proceeding and tailored their litigation strategies — including the scope and even the existence of voir dire (questioning of potential jurors) — to maximize the chance that their preferred version of the statute would apply. It is not for us to comment on the reasonableness of those strategic choices made by experienced attorneys, especially given the inevitably distorting effect of hindsight."
The ruling also rejected arguments that resentencing the men under the new law would violate what is known as the "ex post facto" clauses in the state and federal constitutions. The clauses prevent creating crimes or increasing penalties for conduct that happened in the past.
Jay wrote that the ex post facto clauses didn't apply in resentencing Victorino and Hunter because moving away from a unanimity requirement was "procedural."
"A procedural change — even one that works to a defendant's disadvantage — is generally not an ex post facto law since it does not alter substantive personal rights," Jay wrote. "A law is procedural when it alters how a criminal case is adjudicated instead of addressing the substantive criminal law. … Here, the amendment to (the law) is a quintessentially procedural change that has no substantive effect."
Victorino and Hunter were convicted in the murders of six people in a Deltona home in a case that drew national attention. The case became known as the "Xbox murders" because it involved a dispute about some of Victorino's belongings, including an Xbox video-game system. Victorino, Hunter and two other men were accused of breaking into the house and bludgeoning the victims with baseball bats.
Victorino and Hunter each received four death sentences. At the time, Florida law only required majority jury recommendations — 7-5 votes — before judges could sentence defendants to death.
But resentencing was ordered after a series of events related to a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Hurst v. Florida and a subsequent Florida Supreme Court decision.
The 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found Florida's death-penalty sentencing system was unconstitutional because it gave too much authority to judges, instead of juries. The subsequent Florida Supreme Court ruling said juries must unanimously agree on critical findings before judges can impose death sentences and must unanimously recommend the death penalty. The Legislature responded in 2017 by putting such a unanimous requirement in law.
Because their original jury recommendations were not unanimous, resentencing was ordered for Victorino, Hunter and numerous other death row inmates.
The Florida Supreme Court in 2020 reversed course on the death penalty and said unanimous jury recommendations were not necessary. That opened the door for the Legislature and DeSantis this year to change state law and go to an 8-4 requirement, instead of requiring unanimity.
The law, however, has spawned questions in a variety of older death-penalty cases.
Rowe wound up in May declaring a mistrial in the Victorino and Hunter resentencing proceedings. Online Volusia County court dockets did not indicate Monday when new proceedings would be held.
The appeals-court panel said the mistrial did not moot the need for issuing Friday's opinion.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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