Opinion ID: 3047670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clemency

Text: Mr. Banks next alleges that Florida’s clemency process violates his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of law. Mr. Banks argues Florida’s clemency process is constitutionally inadequate because (1) the clemency board is composed of elected politicians; (2) his post-conviction counsel was not statutorily allowed to represent him in the proceeding; (3) his clemency counsel was ineffective; and (4) no death-sentenced inmate has been granted clemency in Florida in over thirty-one years. We cannot agree. There is no constitutional right to clemency. See Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 279–85, 118 S. Ct. 1244, 1249–52 (1998). An appeal for clemency “is simply a unilateral hope.” Id. at 282, 118 S. Ct. at 1250 (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the district court that in order for a claim of alleged violations of due process and equal protection in a clemency proceeding to succeed, the violation must be grave, such as where “a state official flipped a coin to determine whether to grant clemency, or in a case where the State arbitrarily denied a prisoner any access to its clemency process.” Id. at 289, 118 S. Ct. at 1254. That is not the case here. Mr. Banks has made no conceivable allegation that is sufficient to establish that Florida’s clemency process is as 6 Case: 14-15091 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 7 of 12 arbitrary as a coin flip or that he was denied access to Florida’s clemency process. On the contrary, Mr. Banks seems to assert that the decision of the clemency board might be influenced by an elected politician’s perception of public opinion. Therefore, we conclude that the district court’s decision to deny Mr. Banks a stay of execution was not an abuse of discretion.