Opinion
No. SC08-564.
February 26, 2009.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 84-11698CFANO.
Martin Grossman, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court's denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)( 1), Fla. Const. After this Court affirmed Grossman's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, see Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071 (1989), Grossman unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in this Court and federal courts. See Grossman v. Dugger, 708 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1997) (affirming the circuit court's denial of Grossman's rule 3.850 motion and denying Grossman's petition for writ of habeas corpus); Grossman v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the federal district court's denial of Grossman's petition for writ of habeas corpus), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2430 (2007). In his current appeal, Grossman raises three claims: (1) his sentence of death is unconstitutional because newly discovered evidence demonstrates that lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment and his obesity will put him at risk of a difficult, painful and botched execution; (2) section 27.702, Florida Statutes (2006), deprives him of due process and equal protection by prohibiting counsel from filing a section 1983 claim on Grossman's behalf; and (3) the new ABA report establishes that Florida's current capital sentencing system is unconstitutional. This Court has previously rejected each of these claims. See Ventura v. State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly S71 (Fla. Jan. 29, 2009) (rejecting challenge to Florida's lethal injection protocols and rejecting claim as to section 27.702); Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008) (rejecting challenge to Florida's lethal injection protocols and rejecting claim as to the unconstitutionality of the death penalty system based on the ABA report); see also Henyard v. State, 992 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2008); Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2007); Schwab v. State, 969 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2007); Diaz v. State, 945 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2006); Rutherford v. State, 940 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2006); State ex rel. Butterworth v. Kenny, 714 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1998). As to Grossman's claim concerning his obesity, we agree with the trial court's finding that
the DOC execution procedures effective August 1, 2007, do take into consideration the individual physical attributes of each inmate and provide for individualized procedures in light of any health concerns such as obesity . . . [the] procedures appear to anticipate the complications that might arise with a common medical condition like obesity and provide for means to deal with any such complications.State v. Grossman, No. CRC84-11698CFANO-K (Fla. Pinellas County Cir. Ct. February 26, 2008). Moreover, as we stated in Lightbourne, "[o]ur precedent makes clear that this Court's role is not to micromanage the executive branch in fulfilling its own duties relating to executions." Lightbourne, 969 So. 2d at 351. Accordingly, the circuit court order is hereby affirmed. WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur. QUINCE, C.J., recused. LABARGA, J., did not particpate.