Erlinger Non-Retroactivity and Procedural Bars in Successive Death-Penalty Postconviction Relief

Introduction

In Anthony Floyd Wainwright v. State of Florida (No. SC2025-0708), the Florida Supreme Court addressed an eighth successive postconviction motion filed by a death-row inmate under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Wainwright, convicted in 1997 for the kidnapping, rape and execution of C.G., sought relief on three grounds: (1) a Sixth Amendment jury-trial claim under the newly decided Erlinger v. United States (2024) concerning factual determinations for death-penalty aggravators; (2) newly discovered evidence of neurobehavioral deficits allegedly traceable to his father’s Agent Orange exposure; and (3) a Brady violation based on an alleged undisclosed benefit or expectation of benefit for a jailhouse informant. The Court unanimously affirmed the denial of relief and denied a stay of execution. This commentary examines the Court’s reasoning, precedent analysis, and the broader significance for Florida’s capital postconviction jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Florida held:

1. Wainwright’s Sixth Amendment claim under Erlinger was procedurally barred as repetitive of prior Ring/Apprendi arguments and, in any event, Erlinger does not apply retroactively under Florida’s Witt/Linkletter retroactivity framework.
2. His newly discovered evidence claim based on his father’s exposure to toxins failed both prongs of the test: the “evidence” was drawn from decades-old studies and therefore not newly available, and even if admitted it would not likely produce a life sentence in light of heavily weighty aggravators.
3. His Brady claim regarding jailhouse informant benefits was untimely for lack of due diligence (the underlying facts were publicly known or reasonably discoverable) and, in any event, did not demonstrate suppression of a specific deal or promise that would undermine confidence in the verdict.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the circuit court’s summary denial of relief and denied a stay of execution.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Erlinger v. United States (602 U.S. 821, 2024): Held that any fact increasing a statutory maximum for certain sentences must be found by a jury.
• Ring v. Arizona (536 U.S. 584, 2002) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466, 2000): Established that sentencing factors elevating maximum punishment require jury findings.
• Witt v. State (387 So. 2d 922, 1980) and Linkletter v. Walker (381 U.S. 618, 1965): Set Florida’s three-part retroactivity test balancing fairness and finality.
• Schriro v. Summerlin (542 U.S. 348, 2004): Determined Apprendi-type rules are procedural and non-retroactive absent diminution of accuracy.
• Hughes v. State (901 So. 2d 837, 2005) and Johnson v. State (122 So. 3d 856, 2013): Applied Linkletter to deny retroactive application of Blakely (a progeny of Apprendi).
• Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83, 1963): Requires disclosure of exculpatory or impeaching evidence in government possession.
• Huff v. State (622 So. 2d 982, 1993): Established the hearing procedure for postconviction motions.

Legal Reasoning

1. Procedural Bar and Nonretroactivity of Erlinger
Wainwright’s Rule 3.851(e)(2) successive-motion was barred because he had previously litigated the jury-trial requirement for the prior-violent-felony aggravator under Ring and Hurst. Even if Erlinger constituted a new rule, it is procedural and non-retroactive under Witt/Linkletter: it does not place beyond the state’s power the imposition of death, nor does its purpose—realigning judicial sentencing with the Sixth Amendment jury guarantee—warrant retroactive application. The extensive reliance on judge-finding of aggravators over decades, and the adverse impact on the administration of justice if retroactive, further weigh against application to final cases.

2. Newly Discovered Evidence of Paternal Agent Orange Exposure
To prevail, Wainwright had to show (a) due diligence was exercised and the evidence was unavailable at trial, and (b) a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence if it had been presented. His proffer rested on contemporary expert reports synthesizing studies from the 1990s onward. Because the underlying data was publicly accessible long before 2025, due diligence was lacking. The weighty statutory aggravators (including heinous/cruel and cold/calcified murder) further doom any realistic chance of life. Thus both prongs fail.

3. Alleged Brady Violation by Jailhouse Informant
Brady requires (i) suppressed evidence favorable to the defense, (ii) willful or inadvertent suppression, and (iii) materiality undermining confidence in the verdict. Murphy’s 2025 affidavit alleging an “expectation” of benefit did not show a specific promise or deal by the State. Moreover, postconviction counsel could have discovered Murphy’s pending sentence-modification motion and his probationary release through public records or depositions. The claimed benefit was thus neither suppressed nor material in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Impact

This decision reaffirms Florida’s strict enforcement of procedural bars for successive capital collateral challenges and clarifies that Erlinger’s jury-finding requirement, like Ring and Apprendi before it, will not unsettle final death sentences under Florida’s retroactivity doctrine. Practitioners should note:

• Claims based on new Supreme Court procedural rules risk non-retroactivity unless they fall within Florida’s narrow fundamental-significance exception.
• Newly discovered evidence must rest on truly novel information, not mere aggregation of preexisting data.
• Brady claims require proof of a specific, undisclosed deal or promise, not general expectancy of leniency.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Procedural Bar: Once a legal claim has been rejected in collateral proceedings, it cannot be relitigated.
• Retroactivity (Witt/Linkletter Test): Florida asks whether a new rule (1) removes a state power, (2) furthers its purpose enough to justify retroactivity, and (3) would impose unacceptable disruption if applied to final cases.
• Newly Discovered Evidence Prong 1: The movant must show the evidence was unknown and could not have been found with reasonable diligence before.
• Newly Discovered Evidence Prong 2: The evidence must be so compelling that it probably would change the sentence at a new penalty phase.
• Brady Materiality: Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability it would have changed the trial outcome or undermined confidence in the verdict.

Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Wainwright v. State cements its approach to successive capital postconviction relief:

1. Strictly enforce procedural bars on repetitive claims.
2. Refuse retroactivity for new Sixth Amendment sentencing rules absent fundamental-significance exceptions.
3. Require genuinely new evidence and clear suppression for newly discovered-evidence and Brady claims.

In doing so, the Court balances finality and fairness, signaling that death-row inmates must timely present all constitutional challenges and cannot rely on subsequent judicial refinements to reopen their cases once final judgment has been rendered.