Opinion
Case No. SC08-1812.
February 3, 2010.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 79-773-CFA.
Bryan Fredrick Jennings, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court's order denying a successive motion for postconviction relief, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Because the order concerns postconviction relief from a sentence of death, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under article V, section 3(b)( 1), of the Florida Constitution.
On appeal, Jennings raises four claims: (1) the retroactive application of CCP violated the ex post facto clause and the Eighth Amendment; (2) Jennings' execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in light of the amount of time he has spent on death row; (3) the trial court erred in denying Jennings' claim that the 2006 ABA Report is newly discovered evidence that demonstrates that his conviction and sentence of death constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) the trial court erred in summarily denying Jennings' challenge to Florida's lethal injection procedures as violating the Eighth Amendment.
Regarding his first claim-that the retroactive application of CCP violated the ex post facto clause and the Eighth Amendment-Jennings is not entitled to relief for two reasons. First, this claim is procedurally barred. See Jennings v. State, 583 So. 2d 316, 321, 323 (Fla. 1991) (denying Jennings' claim that retroactive application of CCP was unconstitutional). Second, even assuming, without deciding, that an ex post facto violation occurred, any such error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the facts of this case.
As to his remaining claims, Jennings is not entitled to relief because this Court has repeatedly rejected similar claims.See, e.g., Booker v. State, 969 So. 2d 186, 200 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting claim that almost thirty years on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment);Power v. State, 992 So. 2d 218, 221 (Fla. 2008) (holding that the ABA Report is not newly discovered evidence and stating that "`even if we were to consider the information contained in the ABA Report, nothing therein would cause this Court to recede from its decisions upholding the facial constitutionality of the death penalty.'" (quoting Rutherford v. State, 940 So. 2d 1112, 1118 (Fla. 2006))); Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1080 (Fla. 2008) (affirming summary denial of postconviction challenge to lethal injection procedures).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order denying the successive motion for postconviction relief.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., concurs in result only.