Opinion ID: 2492624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to Death Sentence Based on Johnston's Mental Status

Text: Johnston first claims that his mental disorders constitutionally bar imposition of the death penalty. Citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), Johnston seeks relief based on his mental status. Because Johnston's claim is both procedurally barred and without merit, we deny relief. This Court has repeatedly held that there is no per se bar to imposing the death penalty on individuals with mental illness. See, e.g., Nixon v. State, 2 So.3d 137, 146 (Fla.2009); Lawrence v. State, 969 So.2d 294, 300 n. 9 (Fla.2007). Specifically, this Court has recently considered and rejected the precise arguments that Johnston raises here regarding the evolving standards of decency in death penalty jurisprudence. See Johnston v. State, 27 So.3d 11, 26-27 (Fla.2010) (denying David Eugene Johnston's claim, based on the reasoning in Atkins and Roper, that mental illness is a bar to execution), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 459, 178 L.Ed.2d 292 (2010). And this Court has made clear that we find no reason to depart from these precedents. Id. at 27. Accordingly, we hold that Johnston is not entitled to relief on this claim.