King v. State
In a death-warrant appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary denial of King's successive postconviction motion, rejecting his Fourteenth Amendment claim that FDOC's lethal injection drug inventory logs (the same 'Walls documents' at issue in recent Heath and Trotter warrant cases) showed maladministration warranting additional public records under Rule 3.852(h)/(i), and rejecting his Eighth Amendment 'newly discovered evidence' mitigation claim as untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless. The Court held King failed to show a colorable equal-protection or due-process claim because inventory balance discrepancies do not establish disparate treatment or that drugs administered differed from protocol requirements.
Key facts
- King sought a successive postconviction motion in a death-warrant appeal, challenging the Florida Department of Corrections' lethal injection drug inventory logs and asserting Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims based on alleged discrepancies in drug quantities between executions.
- The trial court summarily denied King's motion for additional public records under Rule 3.852(h)/(i) and rejected his Eighth Amendment claim that newly discovered evidence of general mitigation warranted relief.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is part of a developing line of Florida capital postconviction cases (following Heath and Trotter) addressing challenges to FDOC's lethal injection protocol based on redacted drug inventory logs, and it… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.