Snelgrove v. State
Decision Date | 11 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. SC15–1659,No. SC16–124,SC15–1659,SC16–124 |
Citation | 217 So.3d 992 |
Parties | David Beasher SNELGROVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. David Beasher Snelgrove, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Richard E. Kiley and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Scott A. Browne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent
David Beasher Snelgrove appeals an order of the circuit court denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and simultaneously petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of the postconviction motion and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus, but vacate the two death sentences and order that Snelgrove receive a new penalty phase proceeding 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), and this Court's decision in Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed , No. 16–998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017).
Following a jury trial in May 2002, Snelgrove was convicted and sentenced to death for the June 2000 murders of Glyn and Vivian Fowler. In Snelgrove's initial direct appeal, this Court described the case as follows:
Snelgrove v. State , 921 So.2d 560, 562–65 (Fla. 2005) (footnote omitted).
On appeal, this Court affirmed Snelgrove's convictions but reversed his death sentences, holding that they were invalid because "the jury returned only a single, undifferentiated advisory sentence." Id. at 566. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new penalty phase. Id.
The second penalty phase began in January 2008. On the first day of jury selection, Snelgrove moved for a continuance for additional time to "test for mental retardation."2 Snelgrove v. State , 107 So.3d 242, 247 (Fla. 2012). This Court explained the circumstances as follows:
After Snelgrove's IQ was retested by Dr. Bloomfield, the parties presented the following evidence to the penalty phase jury:
Id. at 248. Based on this evidence, "[t]he jury recommended, by separate votes of 8–4 and 8–4, death sentences for each murder." Id. at 249.
Following the penalty phase, Snelgrove was granted a 15–month continuance of the Spencer 3 hearing to conduct further testing to determine whether he was intellectually disabled. Id. After the testing was complete, Snelgrove filed a motion to prohibit the death penalty due to an alleged intellectual disability, which was taken up at the Spencer hearing in June 2009. Id. This Court summarized the evidence from that hearing as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haliburton v. State
...See Salazar v. State , 188 So. 3d 799, 812 (Fla. 2016) ; accord Williams v. State , 226 So. 3d 758, 773 (Fla. 2017) ; Snelgrove v. State , 217 So. 3d 992, 1002 (Fla. 2017)."In reviewing determinations of [intellectual disability], this Court examines the record for whether competent, substa......
-
Glover v. State
...in tandem in determining that [Glover] was not intellectually disabled; no single factor was considered dispositive." Snelgrove v. State, 217 So.3d 992, 1004 (Fla. 2017). Even Glover's own mental health expert testified that, while "there's information that [Glover] is [intellectually disab......
-
State v. Morrison
...defendant fails to prove any one of these components, the defendant will not be found to be intellectually disabled." Snelgrove v. State, 217 So.3d 992, 1002 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Salazar, 188 So.3d at 812 )."[T]his Court has never held that the defendant must have been given a specific IQ t......
-
Quince v. State
...Williams v. State , 226 So.3d 758, 773 (Fla. 2017), petition for cert. filed , No. 17–7924 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2018); Snelgrove v. State , 217 So.3d 992, 1002 (Fla. 2017). And while Hall requires a holistic hearing, "defendants must still be able to meet the first prong of [the intellectual disa......