holding that “the fact that [the defendant] was placed in special solitary confinement after murdering a correctional officer while on death row does not provide a sufficient distinguishing basis for this Court to depart from its established precedent” repeatedly rejecting the claim that “adding execution to the lengthy period of time . . . served on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the fact that [the defendant] was placed in special solitary confinement after murdering a correctional officer while on death row does not provide a sufficient distinguishing basis for this Court to depart from its established precedent” repeatedly rejecting the claim that “adding execution to the lengthy period of time . . . served on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment”
- explaining that “section 945.10(g), Florida Statutes (2013), makes the identity of the executioner and any persons preparing, dispensing or administer *729 ing lethal injection confidential”
- concluding that the requested clemency “records would not relate to a colorable claim because we have held many times that claims challenging clemency proceedings are meritless”
- concluding that “records would not relate to a colorable claim because we have held many times that claims challenging clemency proceedings are meritless”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would affirm the circuit court’s order in its entirety. I therefore dissent from the majority’s reversal on the claim regarding Muhammad’s inmate and medical records. With respect to that claim, I would conclude that the records are not relevant to- any colorable claim cognizable in this proceeding.
I concur in the lifting of the temporary stay.
POLSTON, C.J., concurs.