Emergency Application — William Frances Silvia, Applicant v. Florida

No. ______

______________________________________________________________

In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________________________________________________________

WILLIAM FRANCES SILVIA,

Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

______________________________________________________________

CAPITAL CASE

DEATH WARRANT SIGNED

Execution Scheduled: August 18, 2026, at 6:00 PM ET

______________________________________________________________

To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of

the United States:

The State of Florida has scheduled the execution of Petitioner, William Frances

Silvia, for Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 6:00 PM ET. Pursuant to the Supreme Court

Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), Mr. Silvia respectfully requests a stay of execution

pending the disposition of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari accompanying this

application.

STANDARDS FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION

The standards for granting a stay of execution are well established. Barefoot v.

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983). There “‘must be a reasonable probability that four

members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious

for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a

significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision; and there must be a

likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.’” Id. (quoting

White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers).

PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED A STAY OF EXECUTION

The questions raised in Mr. Silvia’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari are

sufficiently meritorious for a grant of a writ of certiorari. The underlying issues

present

significant, compelling, questions of constitutional law and a stay is

necessary to avoid Mr. Silvia being executed in violation of the United States

Constitution before the questions are resolved. Madison v. Alabama, 586 U.S. 265

(2019); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399

(1986).

It is indisputable that Mr. Silvia will be irreparably harmed if his execution is

allowed to go forward. The balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of a stay.

Florida’s interest in the timely enforcement of judgments handed down by its courts

must be weighed against Mr. Silvia’s continued interest in his life. See Ohio Adult

Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 289 (1998) (“[I]t is incorrect . . . to say that a

prisoner has been deprived of all interest in his life before his execution.”) (O’Connor,

2

J., plurality opinion). Florida has a minimal interest in finality and efficient

enforcement of judgments, as compared to Mr. Silvia’s rights and significant interest

in ensuring that his execution comports with the Constitution. In addition, the

irreversible nature of the death penalty supports granting a stay. “[A] death sentence

cannot begin to be carried out by the State while substantial legal issues remain

outstanding.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 888. There is a significant possibility of the lower

court’s reversal, should this Court grant his request for a stay and review of the

underlying petition. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to prevent Mr.

Silvia’s imminent execution.

Mr. Silvia’s case presents important constitutional issues which deserve to be

fully addressed by this Court free from the constraints of an accelerated schedule

under a death warrant. As raised in the Question Presented, Mr. Silvia is being

denied the right to “qualified counsel,” as his legal team has been subjected to

multiple overlapping death warrants. Mr. Silvia has a state-created right to counsel,

which invokes his right to protections under the United States Constitution which

guarantee Petitioner’s due process and equal protection rights are not being violated.

See, Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18 (1956) and Eskridge v. Washington State Board

of Prison Terms and Parole, 357 U.S. 214, 216 (1958).

As a vulnerable prisoner under a fresh death warrant, Mr. Silvia has not

received the same amount of quality attention from his court-appointed counsel.

Through no fault of his own, or his attorneys, they have been pulled in multiple

directions based on the volume of recent death warrants and executions of their other

3

court-appointed clients. This was especially true during the early stages of his death

warrant, when counsel should have been focused on investigating potential claims,

as well as providing emotional support to Mr. Silvia. However, counsel was also

focused on providing emotional support to Mr. Occhicone, who’s execution was

scheduled a mere 11 days later, as well as preparing arguments to be submitted to

this Court, as a final chance to obtain justice and relief for Mr. Occhicone. While

counsel was recovering from the death of Mr. Occhcione they were required to attend

the Huff hearing for Mr. Silvia’s successive postconviction motion.

During this

hearing counsel for the state downplayed the emotional impacts of Mr. Occhicone’s

death on defense counsel, as well as the ability to focus on Mr. Silvia’s case, by stating

due to his death at the hands of the state less than 24 hours earlier they were no

longer handling overlapping warrants. Ironically, Governor DeSantis signed a death

warrant on yet another court appointed client of Mr. Silvia’s counsel the following

day.

Had he been given an evidentiary hearing, Mr. Silvia intended to call witnesses

from the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) to explain the unique and troubling

circumstances regarding the signing of his warrant. Mr. Silvia’s legal team has been

served on three overlapping, death warrants for consecutive executions. There is a

website in Florida, which the EOG should be well aware of, called the Comprehensive

Case Information System (CCIS). That website was available for counsel for the EOG,

as well as the Attorney General’s Office to see who the counsel of record was, prior to

signing Petitioner’s death warrant. It is incomprehensible and a violation of Mr.

4

Silvia’s rights, for the same counsel to be subjected to three overlapping death

warrants for consecutive executions.

Lead Attorney Shakoor is one of fourteen attorneys who work for Capital

Collateral Regional Counsel-Middle Region. Capital Collateral Regional CounselNorth Region has four lead attorneys and three second chairs. Capital Collateral

Regional Counsel-South Region has five lead qualified attorneys. As of August 14,

2024, the Justice Administrative Commission website lists thirty-five attorneys on

the Capital Collateral Attorney Registry for Florida. Based on this data, Attorney

Shakoor is one of sixty-one attorneys practicing capital postconviction law in this

state. The Florida Department of Corrections website currently lists 239 people on

Florida’s death row. 1 The specific number of people who have gone through clemency

is unknown, in keeping with Florida’s secretive process, but it defies statistical

probability for Attorney Shakoor and his legal team to be subjected to three

overlapping death warrants for consecutive executions. Additional scrutiny is

required. 2 This Court should enter an equitable remedy 3 in the form of granting this

application for a stay, so a complete evidentiary record can be made regarding the

actions of Florida’s EOG. It is well past time for this Honorable Court to intervene in

what Florida is calling “unbridled discretion” for the governor to sign death warrants.

1 https://pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com/OffenderSearch/deathrowroster.aspx

2 Of the 34 death warrants signed the past three years, Attorney Shakoor has represented eight of

the deceased inmates or soon to be deceased inmates. (Loran Cole executed 8/29/24; James Ford

executed 2/13/25, Glen Rogers executed 5/15/25; Thomas Gudinas executed 6/24/25; Michael King

executed 3/17/26; Dominick Occhicone executed 7/28/26; William Silvia execution set for 9/8/26; and

Harold Lucas execution set for 9/1/26).

3 Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 584 (2006).

5

No executive is above the need for oversight, nor immune from following the

Constitution of these United States.

Additionally, Mr. Silvia has raised multiple violations of his Fourteenth

Amendment rights for due process and equal protection, which also warrants a stay

of the proceedings so this Court can review the State of Florida statutorily created

right to competent counsel to ensure it is being fairly and equitably applied to all

similarly situated capital defendants.

CONCLUSION

“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard

“at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S.

545, 552 (1965). Mr. Silvia’s meritorious issues cannot possibly be heard in a

meaningful manner with just days left until his execution. The important

constitutional issues presented by Mr. Silvia’s case require a full appellate review

that is not truncated by his imminent execution. Florida has led the nation in

executions the past two years and has been accelerating at a pace that infringes on

constitutional rights of men like William Silvia. This Court’s intervention is proper

and necessary.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Silvia respectfully requests this Honorable

Court grant his application for a stay of his execution scheduled for August 18, 2026,

so the compelling constitutional questions in his case can be addressed on the merits.

6

DATED this 14th day of August, 2026.

/s/ Ali A. Shakoor

*ALI A. SHAKOOR

Florida Bar No. 0669830

Assistant CCRC-M

/s/ Debra R. Bell

DEBRA R. BELL

Florida Bar No. 0973068

Assistant CCRC-M

/s/ Mahham Syed

MAHHAM SYED

Florida Bar No. 1049535

Assistant CCRC-M

Counsels of Record for Petitioner

*Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court.

7