Dominick A. Occhicone v. Florida

In 2025 and 2026, the State of Florida engaged in an unprecedented spree of death warrants, resulting in 19 executions during 2025 and 10 so far in 2026, with one scheduled to occur mere hours before Occhicone’s and another one scheduled 3 weeks later. As recently as 2023, before the accelerated rate of executions, Justice LaBarga of the Florida Supreme Court raised concerns over the pace of executions occurring in Florida in his dissent in Barwick v. State, 361 So. 3d 785, 796 (Fla. 2023) As the majority observes, “post-warrant litigation is arduous,” see majority op. at 7, and a death warrant by its very nature requires expedited proceedings. However, these solemn proceedings ultimately involve carrying out a sentence of death for the most aggravated and least mitigated of murders and must still ensure due process of law. I am extremely concerned by the recent pace of death warrants and the speed with which the parties and involved entities must carry out their respective duties. Barwick has raised concerns about the accelerated timetable and argues that “[t]he death warrant proceedings in [his] case lacked any indicia of meaningfulness.” While I agree that Barwick's claims are not entitled to relief under this Court's precedent, I nonetheless caution that even in this final stage of capital proceedings, a meaningful process must be ensured. During the rash of executions, the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”) complied with a records request regarding how the agency carried out the administration of its lethal injection protocol. The logs produced pursuant to said records request, indicated concerns regarding whether Florida is carrying out its lethal injection protocol in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution. Florida courts, including the Florida Supreme Court (“FSC”), have consistently refused to force FDOC to produce additional records regarding the evidence of the maladministration of the current lethal injection protocols. Thus, Florida capital defendants under warrant have raised challenges to this Court in an effort for federal judicial intervention at the highest level. The following previously executed defendants raised claims to this court based on Eighth Amendment grounds: Walls v. Florida, cert denied, No. 25-6357, --- U.S. ----, 2025 WL 3674295 (U.S. December 18, 2025); Heath v. Florida, cert denied, No. 25-6746, --- U.S. ----, 2026 WL 363902 (U.S. February 10, 2026); Smithers v. State, 420 So. 3d 460, 465 (Fla.), cert. denied sub nom. Smithers v. Florida, 146 S. Ct. 323, 223 L. Ed. 2d 143 (2025); Trotter v. Florida, cert denied, No. 25-6853, --- U.S. ----, 2026 WL 504237 (U.S. February 24, 2026); Spencer v. State, No. SC2026-0880, 2026 WL 1757938 (Fla. June 18, 2026), cert. denied sub nom. Spencer v. Fla., No. 25-7648, 2026 WL 1827690 (U.S. June 25, 2026). Other previously executed defendants raised claims related to the maladministration of FDOC’s protocols as due process and equal protection claims: King v. State, --- So. 3d ---, 2026 WL 672101 (Fla. Mar. 10, 2026); Willacy v. State, --- So. 3d. ---, 2026 WL 1021168 (Fla. Apr. 15, 2026). Whereas only this Honorable Court has the power and authority to hold Florida to address Florida’s actions, Petitioner raises the following questions presented regarding this deadly serious matter:

1. Does the Florida courts’ complete refusal to provide additional FDOC records to Occhicone, by imposing an improper standard of raising a “colorable claim for relief” in order to obtain those records, along with their refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing result in an abuse of discretion in violation of Occhicone’s due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Does the State of Florida’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and reliance on its Conformity Clause violate Occhicone’s right to be free from cruel and/or unusual punishment and right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment?