Case Title: Thomas H Provenzano v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC00-1222

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 See Provenzano v. State, 751 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1999); Provenzano v. State, 750 So. 2d 597
(Fla. 1999); Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1999); Provenzano v. State, 739 So. 2d
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-1222
____________
THOMAS H. PROVENZANO,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
[June 20, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
Thomas H. Provenzano, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the
circuit court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief.  We have jurisdiction
pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
There have been a number of decisions released in the last year regarding
Provenzano’s case, and the facts and procedural history of those decisions will not
be recited again in this opinion.1  After this Court’s most recent decision, see
1150 (Fla. 1999). 
2 The following claims are procedurally barred:  (1) newly discovered evidence establishes
that Provenzano is innocent of the death penalty; (2) newly discovered evidence establishes that
Provenzano is not guilty, and had the jury known of this evidence it probably would have found that
the State had not carried its burden to prove Provenzano’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3)
Provenzano was deprived of due process at his capital trial when his jury was not instructed that when
he raised insanity as an issue in the case that the State bore the burden of proof and was required to
prove Provenzano’s sanity at the time of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt just like every other
element of the offense.
-2-
Provenzano v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S408 (Fla. May 25, 2000), the Governor, on
May 30, 2000, signed another death warrant for Provenzano.  On June 7, 2000,
Bennie Demps was executed.  On June 15, 2000, Provenzano filed a motion for
postconviction relief in the circuit court alleging, among other things, that the lethal
injection procedure followed in the Demps execution constitutes cruel and/or
unusual punishment.
The circuit court below held a two-day hearing in order to give Provenzano
an opportunity to present testimony relating to the Demps execution.  The hearing
included expert testimony from both parties as well as eyewitness testimony from
individuals who were present during the Demps execution.  At the conclusion of the
hearing, the circuit court denied Provenzano’s motion.
Provenzano raises four issues in this appeal.  Three of the issues are
procedurally barred and do not merit further discussion.2  The remaining claim is
divided into two subclaims:  (1) the circuit court erred in finding that Florida’s lethal
-3-
injection procedure does not violate the Eighth Amendment, and (2) the circuit court
violated Provenzano’s right to due process by denying him the right to call pertinent
and necessary witnesses or to allow for an extension of time to establish his claim. 
We find no merit to either of these arguments.
In Provenzano v. State, 739 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1999), this Court stated that
there is a presumption that the members of the executive branch will properly
perform their duties in carrying out an execution.  The circuit court determined that
there has been no showing of abuse or cruel or unusual punishment in this case.  
There is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion. 
See Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1997) ("As long as the trial court's
findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, 'this Court will not
substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the
credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the
trial court.' ").  Therefore, we hold that execution by lethal injection does not amount
to cruel and/or unusual punishment.  
Finally, the testimony of members of the execution team was excluded by the
circuit court pursuant to the public records exemptions found in sections 922.10,
3 These sections were recently amended by the Legislature to provide that the death sentence
be executed by lethal injection.  See chs. 00-1, 00-2, Laws of Fla. (signed into law by the Governor
on Jan. 14, 2000).  The amended statutes provide that the identity of “any person prescribing,
preparing, compounding, dispensing or administering the lethal injection is confidential and exempt”
from the public records requirements.  Ch. 00-1, § 1, Laws of Fla. 
4 We do not foreclose that the trial court could hear, in camera, evidence from witnesses who
were present during the procedures preparing for the lethal injection and could hear the qualifications
of those persons who performed the procedures related thereto.  Any record evidence should be
sealed pending a determination of this issue by this Court.
-4-
922.106, and 945.10(1)(e), (g), Florida Statutes.3  In Bryan v. State, 753 So. 2d
1244, 1250-51 (Fla. 2000), this Court held that these public records exemptions
were facially constitutional.  It would have been helpful to this Court had there been
record evidence of the qualifications of those medical personnel present and their
testimony regarding the preparation for the administration of the lethal injection.4 
However, in this case, absent any demonstration of overriding constitutional
concerns, and in light of the eyewitness testimony relating to the procedures that
were followed in the Demps execution, we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the order below and deny the motion to stay.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
-5-
SHAW, J., dissenting.
In my opinion, Thomas Provenzano is incompetent to be executed.  The trial
court found by clear and convincing evidence that he suffers from a delusional belief
that he is Jesus Christ and that this is the real reason he is being executed.  See
Provenzano v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S408, S409-410 (Fla. May 25, 2000)
(Anstead, J., dissenting).  His execution thus violates United States Supreme Court
precedent.  See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989); Ford v. Wainwright, 477
U.S. 399 (1986).
Further, I believe that the observations and credentials of the individuals who
will be performing the medical procedures associated with lethal injection on
Provenzano should be subject to disclosure.  Witnesses to the execution of Bennie
Demps should have been subject to in camera examination and, as noted in the
majority opinion, the record could have been sealed to protect the identity of the
witnesses.  In fact, the State was prepared to agree to this examination.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Orange County,
-6-
O. H. Eaton, Jr., Judge - Case No. CR-84-835
Michael P. Reiter, Chief Assistant, CCRC, Middle Region, Tampa, Florida,
for Appellant
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney
General, Tampa, Florida,
for Appellee