Ferguson v. State

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of John Errol Ferguson’s second successive motion for postconviction relief and his motion for a competency determination. The court rejected or found procedurally barred his challenges to Florida’s execution protocol, clemency proceedings, death-warrant selection process, and prolonged confinement on death row. It also held that a competency hearing was unnecessary because the collateral claims did not require Ferguson’s competent input.

Holdings

1. The circuit court properly denied Ferguson's challenge to Florida's execution protocol and alleged unconstitutional delegation as untimely because the claim was ripe and should have been raised when his judgment became final, rather than when the death warrant was later signed.
2. The circuit court properly denied Ferguson's due process challenge to his clemency proceedings as untimely.
3. The circuit court properly denied Ferguson's claims that Florida's death-warrant selection process was arbitrary, lacked safeguards, improperly involved the State, or gave the Governor unconstitutional unfettered discretion.
4. Ferguson's more than three decades on death row did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
5. A capital defendant is not entitled to a competency evaluation or hearing under rule 3.851(g) when all collateral claims involve only matters of record and do not require the defendant's competent consultation with counsel; because Ferguson's claims were properly denied and did not require his input, the circuit court properly denied his competency motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ferguson's constitutional challenge to Florida's execution protocol and alleged legislative delegation was timely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.
2. Whether Ferguson's due process challenge to his clemency proceedings was timely under rule 3.851.
3. Whether Florida's death-warrant selection process was unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
4. Whether execution after more than three decades on death row constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
5. Whether the circuit court properly denied Ferguson's motion for a competency determination under rule 3.851(g).

Disposition

affirmed