Opinion ID: 1704856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the length of time booker has spent on death row

Text: The sixth and final issue presented by Booker is centered on an argument that to execute him after he has already spent over two decades on death row would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Relatedly, Booker also claims that the State has forfeited its right to execute him under binding norms of international law. [21] We recently rejected identical claims in Knight v. State, 746 So.2d 423, 437 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990, 120 S.Ct. 459, 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999), in which we stated: Although Knight makes an interesting argument, we find it lacks merit. As the State points out, no federal or state courts have accepted Knight's argument that a prolonged stay on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially where both parties bear responsibility for the long delay. See, e.g., White v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1996); State v. Smith, 280 Mont. 158, 931 P.2d 1272 (Mont.1996). We also note that the Arizona Supreme Court recently rejected this precise claim. See State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238, 947 P.2d 315, 336 (Ariz.1997) (finding no evidence that Arizona has set up a scheme prolonging incarceration in order to torture inmates prior to their execution), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 862, 119 S.Ct. 149, 142 L.Ed.2d 122 (1998).... We similarly reject Knight's claim under international law. See also Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340, 1342 n. 4, 1347 n. 10 (Fla.1997) (rejecting defendant's claim that death sentence could not be carried out due to alleged unconstitutional delay), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944, 119 S.Ct. 366, 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553, 591 N.W.2d 86, 94-95 (rejecting capital defendant's claim that it would violate the Eighth Amendment to execute him after his lengthy stay on death row), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990, 120 S.Ct. 459, 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). Consistent with our decision in Knight, we reject Booker's claims regarding this issue.