Upholding Procedural Bars and Rejecting As-Applied Execution Claims: Rogers v. State

Introduction

Glen Edward Rogers v. State of Florida (No. SC2025-0585) is a May 8, 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of Florida that affirms the summary denial of the appellant’s fourth successive postconviction motion. Rogers was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of Tina Marie Cribbs in Hillsborough County. Shortly after Governor DeSantis signed his death warrant, Rogers raised three claims in circuit court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851:

1. That his Capital Collateral Regional Counsel – Middle Region (CCRC-M) labored under an actual conflict of interest and should have been permitted to withdraw;
2. That newly discovered evidence of childhood sexual abuse (including trafficking) entitled him to mitigation and life imprisonment; and
3. That Florida’s lethal injection protocol, as applied to his porphyria diagnosis, would cause cruel and unusual suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The circuit court summarily denied each claim as untimely, procedurally barred, or meritless. Rogers appealed, seeking a stay of execution. The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the matter de novo and unanimously affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Florida Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• Conflict-of-Counsel Claim: Rogers failed to show an “actual conflict” warranting CCRC-M’s withdrawal. The federal lawsuit he filed did not conflict with CCRC-M’s representation, and attacks on past collateral counsel competence are not cognizable under chapter 27 or Florida Rule 3.851.
• Newly Discovered Evidence Claim: Legislative developments and academic studies do not constitute newly discovered evidence under rule 3.851(d)(2)(A). Rogers had or could have had access to sibling testimony and public articles on TICO abuse years earlier.
• Method-of-Execution Claim: His porphyria-based “as-applied” challenge to Florida’s etomidate lethal injection protocol was both untimely and meritless. He identified no substantial risk of severe pain beyond that inherent in any execution, nor a feasible alternative method that would significantly reduce pain.

The Court therefore affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, denied a stay of execution, and declined oral argument.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Rogers I–V: The Court’s own decisions (783 So. 2d 980 (2001); 957 So. 2d 538 (2007); 97 So. 3d 824 (2012); 235 So. 3d 306 (2018); 327 So. 3d 784 (2021)) tracing Rogers’ direct appeal, penalty phase, and successive collateral attacks.
• Zack v. State (371 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2023)): Established de novo review for summary denials under rule 3.851.
• Owen v. State (364 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 2023)): Clarified standards for summary denial when records conclusively show no entitlement to relief.
• Barwick v. State (361 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2023)): Held that professional resolutions and scholarship do not count as newly discovered evidence.
• Glossip v. Gross (576 U.S. 863 (2015)): U.S. Supreme Court’s test for an Eighth Amendment “as-applied” method-of-execution challenge.
• Asay v. State (224 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 2017)): Adopted Glossip’s two-prong standard under Florida law.
• Bucklew v. Precythe (587 U.S. 119 (2019)): Affirmed that risk of some pain is not per se unconstitutional; only a substantial risk of severe pain compared to a known alternative triggers Eighth Amendment scrutiny.

Legal Reasoning

1. Conflict-of-Counsel: Chapter 27 and Rule 3.851 allow withdrawal only for an actual conflict—typically simultaneous representation of co-defendants or direct connections to the trial record. Rogers’ federal due process suit did not conflict with CCRC-M’s state-court representation. Nor does Florida law (§ 27.7002) create a right to challenge postconviction counsel’s performance. The Court declined to import Martinez v. Ryan (566 U.S. 1 (2012)), which applies only in federal habeas and to trial-counsel error.

2. Newly Discovered Evidence: The one-year time bar in rule 3.851(d)(1) may be tolled only for facts unknown despite due diligence. Legislative enactments, policy statements, or scholarly articles are not “new evidence.” Rogers’ family knew of his abuse allegations long ago, and articles on TICO were publicly available. His new argument is merely a repackaging of Rogers V and is procedurally barred.

3. Method-of-Execution: Under Glossip/Asay, a condemned inmate must show (a) a substantial and imminent risk of severe pain and (b) a known, available alternative that significantly reduces that risk. Rogers’ porphyria is speculative; etomidate reliably induces unconsciousness within one minute. He pointed to no feasible alternative (gas chamber or firing squad) that would clearly entail less risk of pain. Prior Florida decisions (Long, Correll, Tanzi) uniformly uphold the etomidate protocol.

Impact

• This decision reaffirms Florida’s strict enforcement of procedural bars in death-warrant cases, signaling that last-minute collateral claims—whether based on counsel performance, legislative developments, or medical diagnoses—will rarely survive summary denial.

• Chapter 27 and Rule 3.851 remain the exclusive avenues to challenge postconviction counsel; no new right to litigate past counsel competence exists in state court.

• The ruling further cements Florida’s two-pronged Eighth Amendment framework for as-applied challenges, making it clear that chronic medical conditions alone do not invalidate the lethal injection protocol absent concrete evidence of excessive risk and a superior alternative.

Future capital litigants face a high threshold: any non-constitutional claims to counsel performance are foreclosed, and Eighth Amendment method-of-execution challenges must meet Glossip/Asay in toto.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Summary Denial De Novo: When a circuit court rejects a rule 3.851 motion without an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court accepts the factual allegations as true (if uncontradicted by the record) and decides the legal issues anew.
• Actual Conflict of Interest: More than mere disagreement with counsel’s strategy—occurs only when counsel’s loyalty is divided by concurrent representation or a personal stake in litigation.
• Newly Discovered Evidence Exception: The one-year filing deadline can be extended only if truly unknown facts surface—publicly available documents, laws, or research do not qualify.
• As-Applied Eighth Amendment Test (Glossip/Asay): Inmates must show (1) a high likelihood of severe suffering from the State’s protocol, and (2) a better, feasible method that drastically reduces suffering.

Conclusion

Rogers v. State solidifies Florida’s uncompromising stance on procedural rules in capital postconviction proceedings and on the narrow scope of “as-applied” Eighth Amendment challenges. By affirming that neither federal due process suits nor legislative developments can unravel long-final death sentences, and by reiterating the stringent Glossip/Asay standard for execution methods, the Court signals to future litigants that only the clearest, most diligent claims will survive summary dismissal. This decision is a keystone in Florida’s death-penalty jurisprudence, underscoring finality, strict time constraints, and the high bar for challenging lethal injection.