Title: Oba Chandler v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC11-2055
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 2011

Supreme Court of Florida 
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011 
 
                                                         CASE NO.:  SC11-2055 
                                                         Lower Tribunal No.:  CRC92-17438 CFANO 
 
 
OBA CHANDLER 
vs. STATE OF FLORIDA 
Appellant(s) 
 
Appellee(s) 
 
 
Oba Chandler, a prisoner under three death sentences and an active death 
warrant, has appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief 
filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 3.851.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. 
V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.  On October 10, 2011, Governor Rick Scott signed a death 
warrant for Chandler and scheduled Chandler's execution for November 15, 2011.  
Chandler, through appointed counsel, filed a successive postconviction motion in 
the circuit court in and for Pinellas County seeking to vacate his sentences of 
death.  He contended that a new penalty phase should be ordered because Florida's 
death penalty scheme is unconstitutional under the principles set forth in Ring v. 
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).  In Ring, the United States Supreme Court applied 
the holding in Apprendi v. Arizona, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)--that any fact other than a 
prior conviction that increases the maximum possible sentence must be found by a 
jury--to capital cases.   
 
Chandler did not seek an evidentiary hearing and raised purely legal issues 
below.  After hearing legal argument of counsel at the case management 
conference, and after considering the motion, the State's response, and Chandler's 
memorandum of law, the circuit court entered its order on October 24, 2011, 
denying successive postconviction relief and denying a stay of execution.  The 
circuit court also entered an order appointing appellate counsel to represent 
Chandler on appeal and notice of appeal was timely filed on October 24, 2011.  
Chandler has also moved this Court for a stay of execution.  We affirm the order of 
the circuit court denying Chandler's motion for successive postconviction relief 
and we deny his motion for a stay of execution.  
 
On September 29, 1994, Oba Chandler was convicted of the 1989 first-
degree murders of Joan Rogers and her two daughters, Michelle and Christe, 
whose bodies were found floating in Tampa Bay on June 4, 1989.  Chandler was 
sentenced to death for each of the murders after a penalty phase proceeding in 
which the jury unanimously recommended death.  On direct appeal, we affirmed  
Case No. SC11-2055 
Page 2 
 
 
his convictions and death sentences in Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 201 (Fla. 
1997).  In June 1998, Chandler filed his initial postconviction motion under Florida 
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and in May 2000, he filed an amended motion 
asserting seven claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  We affirmed 
denial of his initial postconviction motion in Chandler v. State, 848 So. 2d 1031, 
1046 (Fla. 2003).  Chandler subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 
in the federal district court raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, 
which was denied.  Chandler v. Crosby, 454 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1185 (M.D. Fla. 
2006).  Chandler obtained review in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and 
relief was again denied.  Chandler v. McDonough, 471 F.3d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 
2006). 
 
After Chandler's death warrant was signed in the instant case on October 10, 
2011, we issued an order providing that any further postconviction proceedings 
should be expeditiously filed in the circuit court.  Chandler then filed a successive 
motion for postconviction relief in the circuit court contending that he is entitled to 
a new penalty phase proceeding based on Ring.  The circuit court entered its order 
on October 24, 2011, denying Chandler's successive motion to vacate his death 
sentences.  The court correctly found that the successive motion is procedurally 
barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(d)(2) because it does not 
allege newly discovered evidence nor does it contend that there is a fundamental 
constitutional right that would apply retroactively in this case, and does not argue 
that Chandler's counsel failed, through neglect, to file a proper motion.  The circuit 
court also correctly concluded that Chandler's Ring claim was barred because the 
United States Supreme Court and this Court have held that Ring is not retroactive 
to convictions and sentences that were final on direct review.  See Schriro v. 
Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004); Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400, 412 (Fla. 
2005).  Chandler's convictions and three death sentences were affirmed by this 
Court in Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), and the mandate was 
issued.  The United States Supreme Court then denied certiorari review in 
Chandler v. Florida, 523 U.S. 1083 (1998).  Thus, Ring does not apply 
retroactively to Chandler's sentences.   
 
In addition, the circuit court also correctly ruled that Ring does not apply to 
Chandler's sentences because he had several prior violent felony convictions that 
served as aggravators, and prior convictions are exceptions to the requirements of 
Ring.  Further, Chandler was convicted of three contemporaneous murders by the 
same jury that unanimously recommended he receive the death penalty.  See  
Case No. SC11-2055 
Page 3 
 
 
Frances v. State, 970 So. 2d 806, 822-23 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting application of Ring 
when the death sentence was supported by the prior violent felony aggravating 
circumstance based on contemporaneous convictions for murder). 
 
Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is hereby affirmed.  No motion for 
rehearing will be entertained by this Court.  
 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
bhp 
Served: 
 
JAMES HELLICKSON 
BAYA HARRISON, III 
CANDACE SABELLA 
HON. PHILIP JAMES FEDERICO, JUDGE 
HON. KEN BURKE, CLERK