Ken Eldon Lott v. State of Florida

Lott · Supreme Court of Florida · September 17, 2020 · No. SC19-1356

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Ken Eldon Lott’s successive motion for postconviction relief challenging his death sentence. The court held that State v. Poole foreclosed his claim under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State, and that his challenge to the indictment was procedurally barred and meritless because aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in the indictment.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Charles T. Canady, Chief Justice; R. Fred Lewis; John D. Couriel
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
September 17, 2020
Docket number
SC19-1356
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Orange County Circuit Court denying Lott's successive motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.
Standard of review
De novo review of the circuit court's denial of a postconviction motion presenting legal issues.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential
Parties
Ken Eldon Lott v. State of Florida
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefsuccessive petitionssentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

capital postconviction litigationcriminal proceduredeath penalty litigationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Lott was entitled to successive postconviction relief under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State.
  2. Whether Lott's indictment was defective because it did not allege the aggravating circumstances supporting his death sentence.

Holdings

  1. Lott was not entitled to Hurst-based relief because the unanimous jury findings in his case established at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, so there was no Hurst error under State v. Poole.
  2. Lott's indictment challenge was procedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal, and the claim also failed on the merits because aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in the indictment.

Key quotations

reced[ed] from Hurst v. State except to the extent it requires a jury unanimously to find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt (at 2)
Under Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002),] and Hurst [v. Florida], a jury must find the aggravating circumstance that makes the defendant death eligible. (at 2)

Factual background

In 1995, a jury found Lott guilty of the first-degree murder of Rose Conners and unanimously recommended a death sentence. One aggravating circumstance found by the trial court was Lott's prior conviction for a violent felony, based on three prior armed-robbery convictions and one prior attempted-escape conviction, which had been unanimously found by a jury. Lott later sought successive postconviction relief based on Hurst and on the omission of aggravating circumstances from the indictment.

Procedural history

A jury found Lott guilty of first-degree murder in 1995 and unanimously recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal and later affirmed the denial of Lott's initial postconviction motion and DNA-testing motion. In 2017, Lott filed a successive postconviction motion asserting entitlement to relief under Hurst and challenging the indictment's failure to allege aggravating circumstances; the circuit court denied relief, and Lott appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…