Opinion
No. SC06-1241.
April 16, 2007.
Lower Tribunal No.: 81-170-CF-A-01.
This case is before the Court on an appeal of a summary denial of a successive motion for postconviction relief and a denial of a request for additional public records. We affirm the trial court's order denying relief and the request for public records without prejudice to Lightbourne litigating the related issues currently pending in the circuit court pursuant to this Court's December 14, 2006, relinquishment order in Lightbourne v. McCollum, SC06-2391.
Lightbourne's conviction and death sentence were affirmed by this Court in 1983 and since that time Lightbourne has filed several motions for postconviction relief that have been ultimately denied. See Lightbourne v. State, 841 So. 2d 431, 434-36 (Fla. 2003) (detailing Lightbourne's postconviction proceedings). In his most recent motion, filed in February 2006, Lightbourne alleged that his rights under the Vienna Convention were violated when police failed to inform him of his right to contact the Bahamian consulate or notify the consulate of his detention and arrest. He also alleged that Florida's lethal injection statute and current protocols violate both the Florida and United States Constitution, and filed requests for additional public records related to this claim.
As to his claim under the Vienna Convention, we affirm the denial of relief based on Gordon v. State, 863 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2003) and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669 (2006). As to Lightbourne's lethal injection claim, we affirm the summary denial by the trial court based on our decision in Diaz v. State, 945 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2006), which addressed the precise issues raised by Lightbourne in his February 2006 motion. However, as a result of Angel Diaz's execution by lethal injection, a series of events occurred that the trial court could not have considered in denying Lightbourne's motion. The impact of those events on the issue of the constitutionality of Florida's lethal injection procedures is currently being litigated in the circuit court pursuant to this Court's relinquishment order in Lightbourne v. McCollum, SC06-2391. Accordingly, we conclude that the better course is to allow that case to proceed, in which Lightbourne has reasserted his public records request and in which an evidentiary hearing will be held in May 2007.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.