Opinion
No. SC08-2137.
September 3, 2009.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 91-CF-1611.
Charles Finney, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals from the circuit court's summary denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief, raising two issues. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.851. We previously affirmed appellant's convictions and sentence of death. Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674, 678-79 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1096 (1996). We also affirmed the denial of his initial and first successive motions for postconviction relief and denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Finney v. State, 831 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2002); Finney v. State, 907 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2005).
In his first claim in this appeal, Finney contends that the circuit court erred in summarily denying his challenge to Florida's lethal injection procedures as violating the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; art I, § 17, Fla. Const. As appellant admits, however, we have repeatedly upheld these procedures against such constitutional challenges. See Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1081 (Fla. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1305 (2009); Power v. State, 992 So. 2d 218, 220-21 (Fla. 2008); Sexton v. State, 997 So. 2d 1073, 1089 (Fla. 2008); Henyard v. State, 992 So. 2d 120, 129-30 (Fla.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 28 (2008); Schwab v. State, 995 So. 2d 922, 924-33 (Fla. 2008); Woodel v. State, 985 So. 2d 524, 533-34 (Fla.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 607 (2008); Lebron v. State, 982 So. 2d 649, 666 (Fla. 2008); Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2485 (2008); Schwab v. State, 969 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2486 (2008). Additionally, we have held the procedures constitutional under the requirements of Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008). See Ventura v. State, 2 So. 3d 194 (Fla.) ("Florida's current lethal-injection protocol passes muster under any of the risk-based standards considered by the Baze Court (and would easily satisfy the intent-based standard advocated by justices Thomas and Scalia)."), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2839 (2009); Henyard, 992 So. 2d at 130.
In his second claim in this appeal, Finney contends that the circuit court erred in denying his claim that newly discovered evidence, that is, the American Bar Association's September 17, 2006, report, Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in the State Death Penalty Systems: The Florida Death Penalty Assessment Report (ABA Report), demonstrates that his death sentence violates the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.851(d)(2)(A); see also U.S. Const. amend. VIII; art I, § 17, Fla. Const. This Court has repeatedly held that the ABA Report does not constitute newly discovered evidence. See Tompkins, 994 So. 2d at 1082-83; Power, 992 So. 2d at 222-23; Rolling v. State, 944 So. 2d 176, 181(Fla.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 990 (2006); Rutherford v. State, 940 So. 2d 1112, 1117-18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 989 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order summarily denying relief on Finney's successive postconviction motion.
PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.