David Joseph Pittman v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the summary denial of David Joseph Pittman’s third amended successive motion for postconviction relief and his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court held that Pittman’s intellectual disability claim under Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida was untimely, concluding that Hall did not apply retroactively and that the claim was not timely raised as newly discovered evidence. Justice Labarga dissented in part based on her dissent in Phillips v. State.

Holdings

1. Pittman was not entitled to postconviction relief because his intellectual-disability claim was untimely. Under the governing version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203, the claim had to be raised no later than 60 days after October 1, 2004.
2. Pittman's claim was also untimely to the extent it was based on his 2015 IQ score as newly discovered evidence because the motion was not filed within one year after the claim became discoverable through due diligence.
3. The circuit court properly denied Pittman's Rule 3.800(a) motion arguing that his death sentences were illegal because he had not received an evidentiary hearing on his intellectual-disability claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pittman's successive intellectual-disability claim under Atkins and Hall was timely under the governing version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203.
2. Whether Pittman's 2015 IQ score constituted newly discovered evidence permitting a timely successive postconviction claim.
3. Whether Pittman's death sentences were illegal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because he had not received an evidentiary hearing on his intellectual-disability claim.
4. Whether the circuit court erred by considering the State's motion to dismiss, allowing arguments not noticed for the dismissal hearing, or allegedly providing ineffective prior postconviction counsel.

Disposition

affirmed