Opinion ID: 1126316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Clemency Claim

Text: Glock was afforded a clemency hearing at the time of his first death warrant, at which time he was represented by counsel. In the current death warrant, Governor Bush attested to the fact that it has been determined that Executive Clemency, as authorized by Article IV, Section 8(a), Florida Constitution, is not appropriate. Glock now contends that he has been denied access to the clemency process because he was denied the right to present mitigating evidence and denied the right to counsel. In Bundy v. State, this Court rejected a similar argument: In the final claim raised under his 3.850 motion, appellant contends that he must be allowed time to prepare and present an application for executive clemency before sentence may be carried out in this case. In the death warrant authorizing appellant's execution, the governor attests to the fact that it has been determined that Executive Clemency, as authorized by Article IV, Section 8(a), Florida Constitution, is not appropriate. It is not our prerogative to second-guess the application of this exclusive executive function. First, the principle of separation of powers requires the judiciary to adopt an extremely cautious approach in analyzing questions involving this admitted matter of executive grace. Sullivan v. Askew, 348 So.2d 312 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 878, 98 S.Ct. 232, 54 L.Ed.2d 159 (1977). As noted in In re Advisory Opinion of the Governor, 334 So.2d 561, 562-63 (Fla.1976), [t]his Court has always viewed the pardon powers expressed in the Constitution as being peculiarly within the domain of the executive branch of government. See also Ex Parte White, 131 Fla. 83, 178 So. 876 (1938). 497 So.2d 1209, 1211 (Fla.1986) quoted in Provenzano v. State, 739 So.2d 1150, 1155 (Fla.1999). As in Bundy and Provenzano, Glock now seeks counsel for a second clemency hearing. Although Glock contends that Provenzano and Bundy differ from this case because the Governor, rather than Glock, has initiated the clemency proceeding, this is a distinction without a difference. Moreover, for the reasons stated in Bundy, we reject Glock's arguments with regard to his right to present evidence. Accordingly, we find no due process violation and no merit to Glock's clemency claim.