Reply Brief — Jeffrey G. Hutchinson, Petitioner v. Florida

No. 24-7111

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

___________________________________________________________

JEFFREY GLENN HUTCHINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida

______________________________________________________________

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

______________________________________________________________

THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE

WITH AN EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M.

______________________________________________________________

Chelsea Shirley

Counsel of Record

Lisa Fusaro

Alicia Hampton

Office of the Capital Collateral Regional

Counsel – Northern Region

1004 DeSoto Park Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 487-0922

Chelsea.Shirley@ccrc-north.org

Counsel for Petitioner

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Respondent’s suggestion that this Court should not grant review to address

factual findings and credibility determinations misses the point of Mr. Hutchinson’s

argument. See BIO at 6, 11-21. Mr. Hutchinson is not merely “taking issue” with the

findings related to his competency-to-be-executed claim. He is challenging the

fundamentally flawed process that led to those findings, which necessarily

undermines them.

In a similar vein, Respondent is also incorrect that there is “no conflict between

this Court’s Ford jurisprudence and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in this

case.” BIO at 7. This Court was explicit with its concern that competency procedures

be “adequate for reaching reasonably correct results” and the “ascertainment of

truth[.]” Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 954 (2007) (quoting Ford v.

Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 423-24 (1986) (Powell, J., concurring)). The Florida

Supreme Court, by upholding a decision based on a procedure that was not adequate

for these purposes, is certainly in conflict with this Court’s jurisprudence.

Indeed, much of Respondent’s factual assertions and recitations of the lower

courts’ rulings proves the point with regard to a violation of due process. In this Brief

alone, Respondent identifies:

•

The circuit court’s findings that Mr. Hutchinson does not have any

current mental health issues (BIO at 8), and is simply creating an

alibi (BIO at 9)—both of which are the direct result of his counsel not

being able to adequately impeach the three members of the

Commission with evidence of their bias and lack of comprehensive

review; and

1

•

Respondent’s own contention that Mr. Hutchinson has no mental

illness “at all,” (BIO at 6, 8, 10), which is completely contrary to the

underlying record, which in addition to containing a diagnosis of

delusional disorder dating all the way back to the 1990s also includes

Mr. Hutchinson’s childhood history of ADHD; traumatic brain

injuries related to blast overpressure exposure; neurocognitive

conditions attributable to Gulf War Illness; and PTSD related to his

valiant service on the front lines of combat.

Had Mr. Hutchinson received what Ford and Panetti envision, including a

meaningful opportunity to counter the State’s presentation before an impartial

officer, the findings would have been much different.

The Florida Supreme Court’s upholding of the lower court’s order, purportedly

on the basis of competent substantial evidence, was attributable to the Florida

Supreme Court’s misapplication of the incompetency-to-be-executed standard as laid

out in Panetti. Although the Florida Supreme Court used the words “rationally

understood” they actually used the factual awareness standard by relying on the

circuit courts findings that Mr. Hutchinson is aware that (1) his partner and her

children were killed; and (2) he has been convicted, sentenced, and set to die for it.

BIO at 9. This is precisely the standard the Panetti Court disavowed. See Panetti, 551

U.S. at 956 (rejecting as unconstitutional a competency inquiry that asked only

whether a prisoner is “aware that [he] is going to be executed and why”); id. at 959

(prisoner’s “awareness of the State’s rationale for an execution is not the same as a

rational understanding of it.”).

Additionally, Respondent’s contention that “[a] capital defendant raising a

Ford claim is not entitled to the same due process as a defendant who has yet to be

convicted or sentenced[,]” BIO at 10, supports the need for this Court’s certiorari

2

review. One of the questions Mr. Hutchinson has presented to this Court is whether—

in light of Panetti’s clarification that competency-to-be-executed claims do not ripen

until the signing of a warrant—Panetti has created a heightened standard of due

process as compared to Justice Powell’s controlling holding in Ford. Petition at i..

CONCLUSION

This Court should grant a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Florida

Supreme Court.

/s/ Chelsea Shirley

Chelsea Shirley

Counsel of Record

Lisa Fusaro

Alicia Hampton

Office of the Capital Collateral Regional

Counsel – Northern Region

1004 DeSoto Park Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 487-0922

Chelsea.Shirley@ccrc-north.org

Counsel for Petitioner

DATED: MAY 1, 2025

3