Opinion ID: 1697471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Suggested Alternatives

Text: Baze held that a defendant cannot not succeed on an Eighth Amendment objection to a method of execution unless he can proffer a feasible, readily implemented procedure that would, in fact, significantly reduce a severe risk of pain. Id. at 1532. Schwab's suggestions for remedying the alleged defects in the Florida system are not such procedures. His suggestions are additional training of DOC personnel and a reduction in the amount of sodium pentathol. As discussed above, the Court does not believe it is a judicial function to determine the appropriate dose or identity of the chemicals used in the lethal injection process. Lightbourne reiterated the principal enunciated in Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 670 (Fla.2000) that determining the methodology and the chemicals to be used are matters best left to the Department of Corrections. It also stated, Our precedent makes it clear that this Court's role is not to micromanage the executive branch in fulfilling its own duties with relating to executions. Id. at 351. Baze reinforces that principal, advising that the courts should not be asked to become boards of best practices. That same principal would apply to the oversight of DOC training. Like the United States Supreme Court, this Court assumes that the agencies charged with developing execution procedures have an earnest desire to provide a progressively more humane manner of death. Baze at 1531. At oral argument, Schwab's counsel made it clear that he was asking the Court to go behind the protocol and assess DOC's readiness to carry out an execution properly He stated, It's the training. [T]he issue is the proficiency of the DOC training (Exhibit C, transcript of June 24.2008 hearing, p. 30). Schwab's complaint all along has been that DOC personnel is inadequately trained, the Court has previously denied a hearing on this issue. Baze concerns itself with the procedures as described on the face of the Kentucky protocol. The petitioners argued that one basis for finding Kentucky protocol unconstitutional was because of the risk that the protocol's terms might not be properly followed. Id. at 1529. Justice Roberts concluded that the risks of maladministration cannot remotely be characterized as `objectively intolerable.' Id. at 1537. The Court finds no language in Baze that suggests it should look behind the protocol to micromanage the training of DOC personnel. To allow Schwab to force court oversight of DOC training and review of mock execution records would open the door for all condemned inmates to seek such a review prior to their executions, improperly involving the courts in a continuous, on-going monitoring of executive functions. Baze soundly rejected petitioner's arguments that the possibility of a malfunction in the protocol created an Eighth Amendment claim. It stated, A stay of execution may not be granted on grounds such as those asserted here unless the condemned prisoner establishes that the State's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. A State with a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard. Id. at 1537 (emphasis added). Schwab has not demonstrated that the Florida protocol is not substantially similar to the one approved by the United States Supreme Court or that this protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. THEREFORE, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED. The Defendant's Third Successive Motion to Vacate Sentence or Stay Execution is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall immediately transport the record of these proceedings to the Supreme Court of Florida No Notice of Appeal shall be required. DONE AND ORDERED in Titusville, Florida this 25 day of JUNE, 2008 /s/ Charles M Holcomb Charles M. Holcomb Circuit Court Judge