Orme v. State, SC13–819
Decision Date | 30 March 2017 |
Docket Number | No. SC13–819,No. SC14–22,SC13–819,SC14–22 |
Citation | 214 So.3d 1269 |
Parties | Roderick Michael ORME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Roderick Michael Orme, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Jones, Etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer L. Keegan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent
REVISED OPINION
Roderick Michael Orme appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his sentence of death, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and he petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we grant Orme a new penalty phase based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), as interpreted by our decision in Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed , No. 16–998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017).1
A full description of the facts of the instant case can be found in our opinion from Orme's direct appeal. Orme v. State (Orme I ), 677 So.2d 258, 260–61 (Fla. 1996). The facts relevant here are as follows. In March 1992, Orme was charged with premeditated or felony murder, robbery, and sexual battery in connection with the death of Lisa Redd, whose body was found in Orme's motel room. Id. at 260. A jury convicted Orme on all three counts and recommended the death penalty by a vote of seven to five. Id. at 261. The trial judge followed the recommendation and sentenced Orme to death, finding three aggravating factors—committed during the course of a sexual battery; heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); and committed for pecuniary gain. Id. In mitigation, the judge found both statutory mental health mitigators (substantial impairment and extreme emotional disturbance), giving them "some weight." Id. We have previously described the procedural history of this case as follows:
with respect to the penalty phase. As a result, a new penalty phase was ordered. Id. [at 740–41].
[N.2] Orme argued that (1) the trial court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for trial counsel's failure to present evidence of Orme's diagnosis of bipolar disorder ; (2) his death sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), and its progeny; and (3) the general jury qualifications procedure in Bay County, where he was tried, was unconstitutional. [Orme II ], 896 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2005).
[N.3] Three of the claims Orme raised were: (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the fact that Orme was involuntarily absent from two bench conferences, which he claims were critical stages of his trial; (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the claim that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct rendering the conviction and sentence fundamentally unfair; and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the claim that the trial court erroneously allowed forty-three gruesome photographs to be shown to the jury. Orme raised five additional claims, all of which were found not to be properly raised in a habeas proceeding because they were either raised on direct appeal or in postconviction or should have been raised and were therefore procedurally barred. [Orme II , 896 So.2d at 740 ].
contributed significantly to the defendant's substance abuse; (3) the defendant had a difficult childhood; (4) the defendant is a model prisoner; (5) the defendant's potential for rehabilitation; and (6) the defendant tried to get the victim help.
Orme v. State (Orme III ), 25 So.3d 536, 542–43 (Fla. 2009).
At resentencing, Orme was initially represented by Russell Ramey, who was appointed after the Public Defender's Office certified to the court a conflict of interest and moved for appointment of separate counsel. Subsequently, attorneys Sarah Butters and George Schulz of Holland & Knight, LLP, filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel to Ramey. However, at a September 7, 2005, hearing, the trial court informed Butters and Schulz that their pro bono representation of Orme as co-counsel to Ramey could prompt Ramey's withdrawal from the case, as the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) would not pay for court-appointed counsel when private counsel had been obtained. Thus, on November 2, 2005, Butters and Schulz filed a motion for appointment of Michel Stone as co-counsel for Orme.2 A hearing was held on the motion on November 7, 2005, and the trial court conducted a colloquy with Orme, eventually appointing Stone as co-counsel to Ramey.
Orme appealed the death sentence he received at resentencing to this Court, raising nine claims.3 Orme III , 25 So.3d at 540, 543. We affirmed his sentence, finding no reversible error. Id. at 543–53. Orme then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which that Court denied on June 7, 2010. Orme v. Florida , 560 U.S. 956, 130 S.Ct. 3391, 177 L.Ed.2d 309 (2010).
On June 1, 2011, Orme filed the instant motion for postconviction relief, presenting four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—that resentencing phase counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) violating the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) failing to object to the prosecutor's improper arguments at resentencing; (3) failing to preserve the trial court's error in holding that a juror's refusal to consider remorse as a mitigator could only be a basis for a peremptory challenge; and (4) failing to preserve the issue of the jury's consideration of mercy in making its sentencing recommendation. He also raises two additional claims: that rules prohibiting Orme's lawyers from interviewing jurors to discover constitutional error violate Orme's constitutional rights and that Orme's death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. The State filed its response on July 26, 2011. The postconviction court granted an evidentiary hearing on Orme's first claim only. The hearing began on April 30, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the court entered an order denying all of Orme's postconviction claims.
Orme now appeals the denial of his motion, raising four claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith
...2017) (same); Snelgrove v. State , 217 So.3d 992 (Fla. 2017) (same); Newberry v. State , 214 So.3d 562 (Fla. 2017) (same); Orme v. State , 214 So.3d 1269 (Fla. 2017) (same); Baker v. State , 214 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2017) (same); Deviney v. State , 213 So.3d 794 (Fla. 2017) (same); Jackson v. St......
-
Bailey v. Jones
...and Hurst v. Florida[, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) ]. Id. at 785 (footnote omitted).Likewise, in Orme v. State, 214 So.3d 1269 (Fla. 2017), involving another 11–1 jury recommendation for death, the trial court found three aggravating factors—the murder was committed......
-
Orme v. State
...by Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. Poole, 297 So.3d 487 (Fla. 2020). Orme v. State, 214 So.3d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2017). In the instant penalty-phase proceeding, Orme waived a penalty-phase jury, the presentation of mitigating evidence, and his presen......
-
In re Standard Criminal Jury Instructions in Capital Cases, SC17–583
... ... See id. at 619. On remand from the Supreme Court, in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed , No. 16–998 (U.S. Feb. 13, ... ...