Edward J. Zakrzewski, II v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the summary denial of Edward J. Zakrzewski, II’s fifth successive motion for postconviction relief challenging his death warrant and sentences. The court held that his claims concerning jury voting requirements, warrant timing, clemency review, and public-records requests were untimely, procedurally barred, meritless, or properly denied. The court also denied a stay of execution and a request for oral argument, and directed that the mandate issue immediately.

Holdings

1. Zakrzewski's challenge was untimely and procedurally barred because the claim was ripe and available when his judgment and sentences became final and had been raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and in prior postconviction proceedings.
2. The court declined to reconsider its precedent holding that Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State do not apply retroactively to Zakrzewski's death sentences, and the jury-vote and judicial-override claim was meritless even apart from the procedural bars.
3. The timing of the Governor's death warrant did not violate Zakrzewski's constitutional rights to meaningful access to counsel and the courts or due process.
4. The absence of a recent updated clemency review did not violate Zakrzewski's constitutional rights because Florida's clemency process requires no specific procedures, and Zakrzewski had received a sufficient clemency proceeding.
5. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zakrzewski's requests for additional public records because the requests were overbroad and burdensome, unrelated to a colorable postconviction claim, unsupported by good cause for their timing, directed to confidential clemency records, or moot because no responsive records existed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Zakrzewski's challenge to the former simple-majority advisory jury vote and judicial override was timely, procedurally barred, or meritorious under the federal and Florida Constitutions.
2. Whether the thirty-day period between the Governor's signing of the death warrant and the scheduled execution deprived Zakrzewski of meaningful access to counsel and the courts or violated due process.
3. Whether the Governor's signing of the death warrant without a recent updated clemency review violated due process, equal protection, or the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
4. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying requests for additional public records under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852(i).
5. Whether Zakrzewski was entitled to a stay of execution or oral argument.

Disposition

affirmed