William Frances Silvia v. Florida

The State of Florida is currently engaged in an unprecedented spree of death warrants. There have been 12 executions so far in 2026 alone, including a double execution on July 28, 2026. If executed on August 18, 2026, William Frances Silvia, Jr. (“Silvia”) will be the 13th in eight months. Even before the sudden acceleration of executions in 2025, Justice LaBarga of the Florida Supreme Court (“FSC”) 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. For the first time in memory, either through negligence or intentionally, three consecutive death warrants were signed for overlapping executions periods for individuals represented by the very same group of attorneys from the Office of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel – Middle Region, Attorney Ali Shakoor, and co-counsels Debra Bell and Mahham Syed. Due to the severely truncated timeframe created by the scheduling of these executions by the Florida Executive Office of the Governor and the Florida Department of Corrections, Silvia’s attorneys were forced to investigate and present Silvia’s postconviction claims while simultaneously preparing pleadings to be filed in this Court for Dominick Occhicone, and subsequently Harold Lucas, fulfilling Justice LaBarga’s very valid concerns that the uptick in executions and the speed at which they are being carried out would result in the absence of meaningful due process. 1. Does the Florida Supreme Court Opinion in Silvia v. State create an impermissibly distinct standard of representation between capital defendants represented by the offices the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel and all others, thereby violating the equal protection and due process rights of the defendant and all other Capital Collateral Regional Counsel clients, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?