Jackson v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Docket Number: SC2023-1298
• Decision Date: 18 December 2025
• Citation: Jackson v. State, SC2023-1298 (Fla. Dec 18, 2025)
• Parties: MICHAEL JAMES JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

1

MICHAEL JAMES JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. SC2023-1298

Supreme Court of Florida

December 18, 2025

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County Michael R. Weatherby, Judge Case No. 162005CF010263CXXXMA

Cassandra Stubbs and Brian W. Stull of American Civil Liberties Union, Capital Punishment Project, Durham, North Carolina, Megan D. Byrne and Alexandra C. Valdez of American Civil Liberties Union, Capital Punishment Project, New York New York, and Daniel Tilley of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Miami, Florida, for Appellant

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Acting Solicitor General, and Michael Mervine, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

Christopher D. Belelieu of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Representatives Yvonne Hinson, Bracy Davis, Michele Rayner, Dianne Hart, Senator Dwight Bullard, NAACP Florida State Conference, and Equal Ground Education Fund

Melanie C. Kalmanson of Quarles & Brady, LLP, Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Public Defender Association, Advancing Real Change, Inc., Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, Craig Trocino, Esq., Death Penalty Focus, Florida Justice Institute, Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ripley Whisenhunt, PLLC, Witness To Innocence, and The 8th Amendment Project

PER CURIAM

Michael James Jackson and three codefendants robbed, kidnapped, and ultimately murdered James and Carol Sumner, a frail couple in ill health, by burying them alive in 2005. Jackson was convicted of these crimes in 2007 and, for each murder, was originally sentenced to death after the trial judge followed the jury's 8-4 advisory recommendation of death.

Jackson's death sentences were vacated in 2017 based on this Court's holding in Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 44 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. Poole, 297 So.3d 487 (Fla. 2020), "that in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury's recommended sentence of death must be unanimous." In the wake of Hurst, the legislature amended section 921.141, Florida Statutes, to provide that, among other things, a sentence of death in a jury trial could only be imposed based on a unanimous jury recommendation of death. See ch. 2017-1, § 1, Laws of Fla.

For various reasons, Jackson's resentencing did not take place until May 2023. By that time, Hurst's relevant holding and the corresponding amendment to section 921.141 were no longer in effect. Rather, in 2020, Poole receded from Hurst's requirement that a jury unanimously recommend death. See 297 So.3d at 491. And in early 2023-after a nonunanimous (11-1) jury recommendation of death in a school-shooting case resulted in a life sentence for that defendant, Nikolas Cruz-the legislature amended section 921.141 to provide that a trial court may impose a sentence of death based on the recommendation of eight or more jurors. See ch. 2023-23, § 1, Laws of Fla.

The 2023 amendments to section 921.141 went into effect prior to and were applied at Jackson's resentencing. There, the jury again returned 8-4 recommendations of death for each murder, and the trial court again imposed two death sentences.

Jackson now appeals, raising fourteen issues, many of which focus on the 2023 amendments to section 921.141. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const., and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Guilt Phase and Initial Penalty Phase

The evidence presented at Jackson's guilt phase was recounted in our decision on initial direct appeal. See Jackson v. State, 18 So.3d 1016, 1020-23 (Fla. 2009). In short, "[i]n July of 2005, Jackson and codefendants Tiffany Ann Cole, Bruce Kent Nixon, Jr., and Alan Lyndell Wade robbed, kidnapped, and murdered James and Carol Sumner." Id. at 1020. They did so after "the Sumners allowed Cole and Jackson to stay with them in their Jacksonville home." Id. While staying with the Sumners, Jackson noticed they were "frail and would be easy victims," and he "informed Wade of the Sumners' financial position, which included $90,000 from the sale of their South Carolina home." Id. Jackson, Wade, and Cole hatched a scheme, and Wade invited Nixon to join them. Id. at 1021. "At the time of the crimes, Wade and Nixon were eighteen years old, and Jackson and Cole were twenty-three years old." Id.

Days before the murders, and in preparation therefor, Jackson, Wade, and Nixon dug "a six-foot-deep hole in a remote area of Georgia." Id. Then, on the evening of July 8, 2005, after Carol Sumner allowed Wade and Nixon to enter her house, Wade and Nixon held the Sumners at "gunpoint" using a "toy gun" and bound them with duct tape. Id. Jackson then entered the home "and began searching for bank statements and automated-teller-machine (ATM) cards." Id. Wade and Nixon later "ordered the victims to climb into the trunk of the Sumners' Lincoln Town Car." Id. With the Sumners "trapped in the trunk of the vehicle," the codefendants drove that and another vehicle to the Georgia gravesite. Id.

At the gravesite, the Sumners "were placed in the deep hole," id. at 1022, and "buried alive," id. at 1023. Over the next several days, Jackson was captured by "[p]hoto surveillance . . . using the Sumner ATM card several times." Id. at 1022. Jackson also impersonated James Sumner during telephone calls with the bank and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Id. Ultimately, Jackson, Cole, and Wade were arrested in South Carolina. Id. at 1023. Nixon, who was also arrested, "revealed the burial location," id., entered into a plea agreement, and testified at Jackson's trial, id. at 1021 & n.2. Among other things, Nixon testified that "Jackson was in charge." Id. at 1021.

For his part, Jackson, both to investigators and at trial, attempted to pin the kidnapping and murders on Wade and Nixon. Id. at 1023. But the jury convicted Jackson on all counts, including two counts of first-degree murder. Id. at 1020, 1023.

In Jackson's initial penalty phase, he declined to present mitigation, and the jury "recommended death sentences for the murders of both victims by votes of eight to four." Id. at 1024. The trial court imposed a death sentence for each murder after finding eight aggravating factors and concluding that, among other things, the aggravators "far outweighed" one "statutory" mitigator (age) and three "nonstatutory" mitigating circumstances. Id.

This Court affirmed Jackson's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Id. at 1036.

B. Initial Postconviction Motion; Jackson's Concessions

Jackson sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. In 2011, while his motion was pending, Jackson returned to court to waive all guilt-related issues and to acknowledge that the crimes were his idea and that he "was, in fact, the leader." Jackson v. State, 127 So.3d 447, 456, 458-59 (Fla. 2013). The postconviction court later denied Jackson's claims. Id. at 459. This Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied Jackson's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 477.

C. Successive Postconviction Motion-Hurst and Poole

After this Court decided Hurst, "Jackson filed a successive postconviction motion seeking Hurst relief. The postconviction court granted Jackson a new penalty phase, and the State did not appeal the order granting relief." State v. Jackson, 306 So.3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2020). The order granting Jackson a new penalty phase was issued in June 2017.

In early 2020, when Poole receded from Hurst's unanimous-recommendation requirement, Jackson's new penalty phase had not yet begun. Id. at 938-39. Seeking to apply Poole to Jackson's case, the State moved the circuit court to dismiss Jackson's resentencing and maintain his death sentences. Id. After the circuit court denied the State's motion, the State petitioned this Court to direct the circuit court to reinstate Jackson's death sentences. Id. at 937, 939. This Court denied the State's petition, concluding that "Jackson's vacated death sentences [could not] be retroactively reinstated." Id. at 945.

D. Jackson's 2023 Resentencing

Jackson's resentencing took place in 2023, after the 2023 amendments to section 921.141 went into effect. Days after the effective date of the 2023 amendments, Jackson filed a "Motion to Continue, or in the Alternative, Motion to Proceed Under the Unanimity Law," asserting that the statutory changes "raise[d] multiple objectionable issues." Jackson later filed additional motions raising numerous legal arguments against applying the new statute. His arguments included: res judicata; laches; Eighth Amendment arbitrariness; bill of attainder; equal protection; lack of adequate safeguards; proportionality; lack of unanimity rendering Florida as an extreme outlier; evolving standards of decency; that the new statute violates Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985); Sixth Amendment right to unanimity; that section 775.022(3), Florida Statutes, required the 2023 amendments to be applied prospectively; and that text messages between his lead prosecutor and a state representative sent during the enactment of the 2023 amendments precluded the new statute from applying.

The judge, after holding hearings, denied Jackson's motions, concluding that the 2023 amendments applied to the new penalty phase. The case then proceeded to jury selection.

During the new penalty phase, the State sought to prove, for each murder, the same eight aggravators from the initial penalty phase. In...