Case Title: Pittman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC21-1185

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2022-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC21-1185 
____________ 
 
DAVID JOSEPH PITTMAN, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
April 28, 2022 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
 
David Joseph Pittman, a prisoner under sentence of death, 
appeals the circuit court’s order summarily denying his third 
amended successive motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant 
to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and his motion to 
correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.800(a).  We affirm the denial of relief.1 
 
In 1991, Pittman was convicted of the first-degree murders of 
Clarence and Barbara Knowles, and their daughter Bonnie, two 
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 
 
- 2 - 
counts of arson, and grand theft.  See Pittman v. State, 646 So. 2d 
167, 168-69 (Fla. 1994).  Pittman was sentenced to death for each 
murder, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentences.  Id.  
His death sentences became final in 1995 when the United States 
Supreme Court denied certiorari review.  Pittman v. Florida, 514 
U.S. 1119 (1995).  We also affirmed the denial of Pittman’s initial 
postconviction motion and denied habeas relief.  Pittman v. State, 
90 So. 3d 794, 820 (Fla. 2011). 
 
In 2015, Pittman filed his first successive postconviction 
motion.  Following subsequent amendments,2 Pittman’s third 
amended successive postconviction motion3 alleged that he is 
intellectually disabled and entitled to relief based on Atkins v. 
Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), and Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 
(2014).  Pittman subsequently filed a rule 3.800(a) motion arguing 
that his death sentences are illegal because he has not received an 
evidentiary hearing on his intellectual disability claim.  The circuit 
 
2.  Pittman did not appeal the denial of his prior successive 
3.851 motions. 
 
3.  Pittman’s motion was titled as his “second” amended 
motion, but it is his third amended motion. 
 
- 3 - 
court summarily denied Pittman’s third amended successive 
postconviction motion, finding that his intellectual disability claim 
was untimely, and also denied his rule 3.800(a) motion. 
 
We agree with the postconviction court that Pittman is not 
entitled to postconviction relief on his intellectual disability claim 
because that claim is untimely.  As this Court stated in Phillips v. 
State, 299 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 2020), Hall does not apply 
retroactively.  Therefore, under the governing version of Florida Rule 
of Criminal Procedure 3.203, which this Court adopted in the wake 
of the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins, Pittman was required to 
raise his intellectual disability claim no later than 60 days after 
October 1, 2004.  See Amends. to Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc. & Fla. 
Rules of App. Proc., 875 So. 2d 563, 571 (Fla. 2004).  To the extent 
Pittman argues that his IQ score of 70 from 2015 is newly 
discovered evidence, Pittman’s motion was not timely because it 
was not filed within one year of the date upon which the claim 
became discoverable through due diligence.  See Dillbeck v. State, 
304 So. 3d 286, 288 (Fla. 2020).  Record evidence refutes Pittman’s 
claim that this information could not have been discovered prior to 
2015. 
 
- 4 - 
 
Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s summary 
denial of Pittman’s third amended successive postconviction motion 
and the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion.4 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and 
GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION 
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
LABARGA, J., dissenting. 
 
In light of my dissent in Phillips v. State, 299 So 3d 1013 (Fla. 
2020) (receding from Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016), and 
holding that Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), does not apply 
retroactively), I dissent to the majority’s decision to the extent that 
it affirms the summary denial of Pittman’s third amended 
successive motion for postconviction relief. 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Polk County, 
Jalal A. Harb, Judge – Case No. 531990CF002242A1XXXX 
 
 
4.  We also reject without discussion Pittman’s arguments that 
the circuit court erred in considering the State’s motion to dismiss 
and in allowing arguments not noticed for the motion to dismiss 
hearing, see Freeman v. State, 300 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 2020), and his 
argument that his prior postconviction counsel was ineffective, see 
Sweet v. State, 293 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2020). 
 
- 5 - 
 
Eric Pinkard, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Julissa R. 
Fontán, Heather A. Forgét, and Natalia C. Reyna-Pimiento, 
Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, 
Temple Terrace, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Timothy 
A. Freeland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee