Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...a; (2) asserts that section 27.702, Florida Statutes (2007), as interpreted by this Court, is unconstitutional facially and as applied because it prohibits CCRC from filing mode-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000); (3) claims that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007), as interpreted by this Court, is unconstitutional because it prohibits him from discovering the identities of his executioners, which he contends precludes him from determining the adequacy of their qualificat...

...State, 992 So.2d 218, 222-23 (Fla.2008)); Rolling v. State, 944 So.2d 176, 181 (Fla.2006) (citing Rutherford v. State, 940 So.2d 1112, 1117, 1118 (Fla.2006)). [3] This Court has already addressed and rejected similar claims with regard to sections 27.702 and 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...ven upon a showing of good cause. We find Bryan v. State, 753 So.2d 1244 (Fla.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1185, 120 S.Ct. 1236, 145 L.Ed.2d 1132 (2000), analogous to the instant case. In Bryan, the court analyzed a public records exemption provided in section 945.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), which exempted from disclosure records and information of the Department of Corrections "which if released would jeopardize a person's safety." The Legislature had justified the adoption of this exemption by stating that "it is a public necessity that the department records......

...motion to vacate sentence in the trial court. Henyard's motion raised four claims: (1) newly discovered evidence proves Florida's method of lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment, (2) section 27.702, Florida Statutes is unconstitutional, (3) section 945.10, Florida Statutes is unconstitutional, (4) Florida's death penalty scheme is unreliable and violates the Eighth Amendment based on a September 17, 2006, report of the American Bar Association....

...ze. Furthermore, we have specifically rejected the argument that Florida's current lethal injection protocol carries "a substantial, foreseeable, or unnecessary risk of pain." Lightbourne, 969 So.2d at 353. Accordingly, we reject Henyard's argument. Section 945.10, Florida Statutes Next, Henyard alleges section 945.10, Florida Statutes, which exempts the disclosure of the identity of an executioner from public records, is unconstitutional. We previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now....

...It should be emphasized, however, that our determination in regard to the instant appeal in no way implies that the records sought by the plaintiff below are subject to discovery in the face of the confidentiality afforded to medical and substance abuse records by section 945.10(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Subsequent to the rescheduling of his execution, Bryan filed in the trial court motions to (1) open and release confidential records pertaining to his trial counsel's treatment for alcoholism; (2) declare unconstitutional public record exemptions contained in section 945.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), and chapters 2000-2 and 2000-1 of the Laws of Florida; (3) compel public records disclosure regarding lethal injection; (4) find the new lethal injection statute unconstitutional under the Savings Clause...

...To that end, since Stokes' alcoholism is irrelevant under Strickland, the trial court properly denied Bryan's request to open and release Stokes' alcoholism treatment records. [4] Thus, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief on this issue. [5] Bryan's second issue is whether public records disclosure exemptions under section 945.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), and chapters 2000-2 and 2000-1 of the Laws of Florida are unconstitutional....

...To that end, the legislature "may provide by general law for the exemption of records from the requirements of subsection (a) ... provided that such law shall state with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and shall be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law." Id. § 24(c). Section 945.10 provides, in part: Confidential information.— (1) Except as otherwise provided by law or in this section, the following records and information of the Department of Corrections are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution: . . . . (e) Information which if released would jeopardize a person's safety. § 945.10, Fla....

...The exemption satisfies the requirements established in article I, section 24 in that the legislature provided a specific public necessity for the exemption as follows: The Legislature finds that it is a public necessity that the department records enumerated in section 945.10(1), Florida Statutes, remain confidential and exempt from public disclosure as envisioned by the existing statute and rules because to provide otherwise would in some cases conflict with other existing law or would reveal information that would jeopardize the safety of the guards, inmates, and others....

...Thus, the harm from disclosure would outweigh any public benefit derived therefrom.... It is mandatory that prisons function as effectively, efficiently, and as nonviolently as possible. To release the exempted information to the public or to provide inmates with the information described in section 945.10, Florida Statutes, would severely impede that function and would jeopardize the health and safety of those within and outside the prison system....

...Med. Ctr. v. News-Journal Corp., 724 So.2d 567, 569-70 (Fla.1999)(holding that an exemption as to "strategic plans" was unconstitutional under article I, section 24(c) where there was no "justification for the breadth of the exemption"). Therefore, section 945.10(1)(e) satisfies the constitutional requirements for an exemption to the public records disclosure law since it provides a meaningful exemption that is supported by a thoroughly articulated public policy....

...We consider all of these claims to be derivative of the central question dealing with Stokes' effectiveness at trial which, as explained above, we have found to be effective. The Court therefore denies relief based on these claims. [6] Bryan also attacks section 945.10 under article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which provides that the "powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches....

...motion of Dolan Darling (a/k/a Sean Smith) filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Through this motion, Darling challenges the constitutionality of lethal injection as administered in Florida and the constitutionality of sections 945.10 and 27.702, Florida Statutes *446 (2007)....

...n Florida; (2) asserts that section 27.702, Florida Statutes (2007), as interpreted by this Court, is unconstitutional facially and as applied because it prohibits CCRC from filing lethal-injection challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) claims that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007), as interpreted by this Court, is unconstitutional because it prohibits him from discovering the identities of his executioners, which precludes him from determining the adequacy of their qualifications and tra...

...Rees affects the validity of our decisions upholding Florida's current lethal-injection protocol." Id. at 202. This Court has previously considered and rejected each of Darling's constitutional challenges to Florida's lethal-injection protocol. We decline to recede from our prior precedent. Constitutionality of Section 945.10 Darling's constitutional challenge against section 945.10, Florida Statutes *448 (2007), which prevents a defendant sentenced to death from discovering the identities of his or her executioners, is procedurally barred because of his failure to assert it in prior postconviction proceedings. Moreover, this Court has consistently rejected similar claims on the merits. See Ventura, 2 So.3d at 197 n. 3 ("This Court has already addressed and rejected similar claims with regard to sections 27.702 and 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007)."); Henyard, 992 So.2d at 130 ("[Appellant] alleges section 945.10, Florida Statutes, which exempts the disclosure of the identity of an executioner from public records, is unconstitutional. We previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now." (citing Bryan v....

...n Commission," goes on to require that in developing this system, the Department of Corrections shall consult the Parole and Probation Commission in order that such offender based information system be designed "to serve the needs of both agencies." § 945.10(3), Fla....

...g to investigate, question and remove a juror from the jury panel; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly argue the applicability of the statutory age mitigator; (4) Florida’s lethal injection protocols are unconstitutional; (5) section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2008), is unconstitutional; (6) section 27.702, Florida Statutes (2008), is unconstitutional; (7) rule 4-3.5(d)(4) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar is unconstitutional; (8) Florida’s jury instructions violate Caldwell v....

...SC08-2270 (Fla. Nov. 18, 2009). Because this claim is legally insufficient, Troy is not entitled to relief. 5. Section 915.10 Troy next asserts that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on the constitutionality of section 945.10, Florida Statutes....

...lorida, and the evidentiary-hearing testimony considered *841 by the circuit court in the Lightboume proceedings. Nothing in this claim required a factual determination. Furthermore, we have repeatedly rejected challenges to the constitutionality of section 945.10 on the merits. See Darling v. State, 45 So.3d 444, 448 (Fla.2010) (citing Ventura, 2 So.3d at 197 n. 3); see also Henyard v. State, 992 So.2d 120, 130 (Fla.2008) (“We previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now.”).- Additionally, even if the Court were willing to recede from this precedent, as of this date the Governor has not signed a death warrant for Troy; consequently,...

execution team is supported by statutory and case law. § 945.10(g), Fla. Stat. (2017); Muhammad v. State, 132

...ce by failing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of Wheeler or object to the testimony of Dr. Raphael Perez, who saw Wheeler while he was in jail; (6) Florida’s method of lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment; (7) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally prohibits Wheeler from knowing the identity of his execution team members; (8) Wheeler’s execution will be unconstitutional because Wheeler may be incompetent at the time of execution; and (9) cumulative error deprived Wheeler of a fundamentally fair trial....

...Wheeler has not made any additional allegations that would call into question the State’s current methods of execution. For the same reason, we also summarily deny claim 7. See, e.g., Henyard v. State, 992 So.2d 120, 130 (Fla.2008) (“We previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now.”)....

...comparative worth statements; (6) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of Wheeler; (7) Florida’s lethal injection method of execution is unconstitutional; (8) section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional; (9) Wheeler may be incompetent at the time of execution; and (10) cumulative error deprived Wheeler of a fundamentally fair trial.

...The Commission is directed to establish a binding presumptive parole release date for petitioner James within 15 days. SHIVERS, SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The danger of relying on a report written long after an inmate confinement to determine his presumptive parole release date is readily apparent. Section 945.10(2), Fla....

...ot demonstrate how knowing the identities of these persons, or even being able to call them as witnesses, would be necessary and relevant to a colorable lethal injection claim concerning the safety and efficacy of midazolam hydrochloride. Second, section 945.10 (g), Florida Statutes (2013), makes the identity of the executioner and any persons preparing, dispensing, or administering lethal injection confidential. The provisions of section 945.10 which protect the confidentiality of the identity of members of the execution team have been upheld as constitutional and the Court has subsequently declined to recede from that ruling....

...State, 82 So.3d 84, 87 (Fla.2012) (more than thirty-one years); Valle v. State, 70 So.3d 530, 552 (Fla.2011) (thirty-three years). Correll is not' entitled to relief on this claim. Identity and Background of Execution Team Correll next contends that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2014), which exempts from public records law “[ijnforma tion which identifies an executioner, or any person prescribing, preparing, compounding, dispensing; or administering a lethal injection,” renders Correll’s death sentences unconstitutional and is contrary to evolving standards of decency because it precludes him .from- obtaining information about the individuals who will be involved in his execution. § 945.10(g), Fla. Stat. (2014). However, this Court has previously rejected constitutional challenges to section 945.10, as well as claims that an inmate facing execution has the right to know the identities of execution team members....

...State, 45 So.3d 444, 447-48 (Fla.2010) (“Darling simply requests that we recede from prior precedent so that he may engage in an in-depth review of his executioners’ qualifications and training. We refuse to do so.”); Henyard v. State, 992 So.2d 120, 130 (Fla.2008) (“We [have] previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now.”)....

...Moreover, the recent executions of Johnny Kormondy, Chadwick Banks, Eddie Davis, John Henry, and Robert Hendrix have been carried out with no subsequent allegations of difficulties. Correll has failed to justify reconsideration of prior rulings that have upheld the constitutionality of section 945.10 and determined that death row inmates do not have a right to know the identities and qualifications of execution team members....

...1531 , 191 L.Ed.2d 558 (2015), should be issued by the Supreme Court. . See Glossip, 135 S.Ct. at 2737-39 . . Correll also sought the names and background information of his execution team members; however, as previously discussed, that information is confidential and exempt from disclosure under section 945.10, Florida Statutes....

...xposure to toxic substances; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to preserve a Batson 3 challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of Juror 111; (3) Florida’s lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional; (4) Section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2013), is unconstitutional; (5) King may be incompetent at the time of his execution; and (6) cumulative error during trial deprived King of his right to a fair trial....

...hose of the United States Supreme Court in Glossip. King has also failed to allége the existence of a readily available alternative method of execution. Therefore, we conclude this claim is meritless. Identity of Executioners King also asserts that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2014), which exempts from disclosure the identity of those individuals who participate in the lethal injection procedure, is unconstitutional....

...2011) (recognizing that Florida’s lethal injection protocol has remained essentially unaltered since this Court’s decision in Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326, 349 (Fla. 2007), holding such protocol to be constitutional). B. Lethal Injection Procedures, Coupled with Section 945.10, Florida Statutes, Which Prohibits Deparvine From Knowing the Identity of Specified Members of the Execution Team, Violate His Constitutional Rights. Deparvine alleges that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2013), is unconstitutional because it prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the members of the execution team and the executioners, thus precluding him from determining the adequacy of their qualifications and training. The postconviction court summarily denied this claim. Deparvine does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Because we have repeatedly rejected challenges to the constitutionality of section 945.10 on the merits, we affirm the postconviction court’s summary denial of this claim....

...Appellant seeks review of an order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the Department of Corrections (DOC) to allow him access to certain psychiatric and psychological evaluations of him made by members of the DOC staff. He claimed entitlement to these evaluations under Section 945.10(2), Florida Statutes (1988), and Diaz v....

...unconstitutional because it presumes that death is an appropriate sentence upon the finding of a single aggravating factor, and also requires a defendant to establish that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances for a life sentence to be appropriate; (9) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional because it precludes Smith from knowing the identity of execution team members; and (10) cumulative error....

...t has not made any additional allegations that would call into question the State’s current methods of execution.”). - 11 -  We affirm the denial of this claim. Section 945.10 Smith contends that the postconviction court erred when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the constitutionality of Florida’s lethal injection procedures and, more specifically, section 945.10, Florida Statutes....

...ring on this claim, one would not have been warranted. - 12 -  With regard to the claims that were presented below, and are therefore preserved, we have previously rejected constitutional challenges to section 945.10. See, e.g., Darling v....

...2010) (“Darling simply requests that we recede from prior precedent so that he may engage in an in-depth review of his executioners’ qualifications and training. We refuse to do so.”); Henyard v. State, 992 So. 2d 120, 130 (Fla. 2008) (“We previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now.”). Accordingly, we conclude that this challenge is without merit. Cumulative Error Finally, where the individual cl...

...27.7001 and 27.702, Florida Statutes (2008), as interpreted by this Court, are unconstitutional facially and as applied because these statutes prohibit CCRC from filing mode-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000); and (3) claims that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2008), as interpreted by this Court, is unconstitutional because it prohibits him from discovering the identities of his executioners, which he contends precludes him from determining the adequacy of their qualifications and training....

...onviction representation fully justifies the rejection of Cox's claim that section 27.7001 is unconstitutional. LEWIS, J., dissenting. I agree with my colleagues that Cox's constitutional challenges to Florida's current lethal-injection protocol and section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2008), are meritless....

...[N]othing contained within the various opinions of Baze v. Rees, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008), affects the validity of our decisions upholding Florida's current lethal-injection protocol."); Provenzano v. State, 761 So.2d 1097, 1099 & nn. 3-4 (Fla.2000) (explaining that section 945.10, Florida Statutes, does not prevent members of the execution team from providing relevant in-camera *661 testimony so long as "information ....

...e description of the situation surrounding the criminal activity with which the offender has been charged, including a synopsis of the trial transcript, if one has been made, and, at the offender's discretion, his version and explanation of the act. Section 945.10(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: Except as provided below, information in a presentence investigation report made by the Department of Corrections shall be confidential and shall be available only to officers and employees of the...

...However, this holding passes on a serious public policy issue, especially with regard to the sanctity of the pretrial investigation and the need for a defendant's cooperation therewith, so we certify the following question as one of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 945.10(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), AND RELATED STATUTES PRECLUDE THE STATE'S USE OF A DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS MADE FOR PURPOSES OF A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT TO IMPEACH THE DEFENDANT MAKING STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT THEREWITH WHILE TESTIFYING AT TRIAL....

...Remaining Claims Finally, we affirm the circuit court’s summary denial of McLean’s claims that: (1) Florida’s lethal injection procedure is unconstitutional because it involves a risk that it will cause extreme pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment, (2) section 945.10(1)(g), Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional, and (3) that his constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment will be violated since he may be incompetent at the time of execution....

...1156 (2014) (“Summary denial of a lethal injection challenge is proper where the asserted reasons . . . are based upon conjecture or speculation.”); Henyard v. State, 992 So. 2d 120, 130 (Fla. 2008) (“We [have] previously found - 14 - section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now.”); Hall v....

...activities from ages 18 to 21 and establish that his adverse development, mental health, and neurological problems were present at the time of the homicide. In addition, Lebron claimed cumulative error during both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Lebron also alleged that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2009), infringes on his constitutional rights by preventing him from knowing the identity of the members of the execution team....

...The appellant is a prison inmate challenging an order entered on his request for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus, whereby the appellant sought to establish that the copy charge in Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-601.901(2) is unlawful and unconstitutional. The appellant contended that this rule, as well as section 945.10(3), Florida Statutes, is arbitrary and capricious and violates his right to due process....

...2016) (rejecting defendant’s claim that he was constitutionally entitled to know the identity of his execution team and explaining that identity of executioners was not ascer-tamable because Governor had not signed death warrant); Muhammad v. State, 132 So.3d 176, 205 (Fla. 2013) (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”); Power v....

...(1981), dictates that the record for judicial review be compiled by the agency and that it contain the final order plus documents considered by the agency prior to its action. Theoretically, Arlotta cannot know if the documents contained in his appendix are in his Department of Corrections file, because § 945.10(2), Fla.Stat....

...ourt denied Smith's petition, finding that the information sought was either exempt under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2007), as identifying information of active or former corrections officers, or was subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3)....

...orth in Smith v. Fisher, 965 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). On appeal, Smith challenges the propriety of the denial of his records request and the determination that he is a vexatious litigant. Smith also raises constitutional challenges to sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). We find no error in the court's denial of Smith's petition for writ of mandamus. Further, we find no constitutional infirmity in sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4)....

...The court held that fairness dictated that a defendant be suppled with the same unredacted copy of the PSI containing the statements of the victim or the victim’s relatives which is furnished to the State. The court directed the DOC to provide such unredacted PSIs to all defendants in the future. Pursuant to section 945.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), PSIs in the possession of the DOC are confidential. Prior to the amendment of section 945.10 in 1994, the DOC could make PSIs available to officers and employees of the court without constraint....

...The 1994 amendment restricted the release of that portion of a PSI which contains the statement and address of the victim or the victim’s relatives. Ch. 94r-83, § 1, at 301, Laws of Fla. The effect of the amendment was to prohibit the DOC’s release of such information to a public defender representing a defendant. § 945.10(2)(d), Fla....

INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE INMATE? QUESTION ONE Section 945.10(1), F.S., states that: Except as provided

...recommendation; (8) Florida’s capital sentencing statute fails to prevent the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty and violates the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment; (9) lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; (10) section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2018), is unconstitutional; and (11) Campbell may be incompetent at the time of execution. -6-  On January 27, 2017, Campbell amended claims four, six, and seven of his motion....

...State unconstitutionally presented conflicting theories to the jury. With regard to the penalty phase, Wright had also claimed that: (1) his counsel were ineffective for failing to assert that he should receive a life sentence due to the superior intelligence of his codefendant; (2) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally withholds the identity of the execution team members; and (3) Florida’s lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional. - 16 - ...

...further, to the extent trial counsel failed to present this challenge, they were ineffective; (7) Florida’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional as applied pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Ring; (8) cumulative error; (9) section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2005), is unconstitutional because it precludes Turner from knowing the identity of his execution team members; and (10) Turner may be incompetent at the time of execution. The postconviction court held a Hu...

...raised on direct appeal); Wyatt v. State, 71 So. 3d 86, 112 (Fla. 2011) (rejecting challenge to constitutionality of execution methods as meritless); Darling v. State, 45 So. 3d 444, 447-48 (Fla. 2010) (rejecting challenge to constitutionality of section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007), which exempts from public records the identity of an executioner); Israel v. State, 985 So....

...State unconstitutionally presented conflicting theories to the jury. With regard to the penalty phase, Wright had also claimed that: (1) his counsel were ineffective for failing to assert that he should receive a life sentence due to the superior intelligence of his codefendant; (2) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally withholds the identity of the execution team members; and (3) Florida’s lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional. - 16 - ...

...CURIAM. The petitioner here, an inmate at the Avon Park Correctional Institution, seeks mandamus to force the Department of Corrections or the Parole and Probation Commission to turn over to him a post-sentence investigation report. Florida Statute § 945.10(2), proscribes the relief sought as follows: “No inmate of any institution, facility, or program of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation shall have access to any information contained in the files of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation..." Accordingly, Petition for Mandamus is DENIED....

...additional witnesses to support Jackson’s community ties as a nonstatutory mitigator; (20) the combination of cumulative errors in the penalty phase entitle Jackson to relief; (21) the combination of cumulative errors in the guilt and penalty phases entitle Jackson to relief; (22) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, which prohibits Jackson from knowing the identify of his execution team, is unconstitutional; and (23) Jackson may be incompetent at the time of his execution....

...e cumulative errors); and claim 21 (involving alleged cumulative errors occurring in the guilt and penalty phases). In addition, as Jackson recognizes that two of his claims are not ripe, we also deny claim 22 (pertaining to the constitutionality of section 945.10, Florida Statutes) and claim 23 (alleging that Jackson may be incompetent at the time of his execution). - 10 - Schoenwetter v....

...legislative authority. Under the doctrine of Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 427 So.2d 153 (Fla.1982), appellant seeks a determination from this court as to the constitutionality of section 945.10(2), Florida Statutes (1985), 2 the statutory authority for the challenged rule. Agreeing with appellant, we find section 945.10(2) to be unconstitutional. Appellant requested the Department provide him copies of various documents maintained by the Department. His request was denied under Rule 33-6.006 and section 945.10. Appellant then filed a petition under section 120.56, Florida Statutes, contending the rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and that it was arbitrary and capricious. Taking the position that section 945.10 was intended only to deny inmates confidential information in the department’s files, appellant contended the rule was not reasonably related to the purpose of section 945.10....

...utory mandate. Under the reasoning of Turner v. Safley, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) 3 , we find no rational basis for totally denying inmates access to information in the files of the Department of Corrections, as provided under section 945.10(2), Florida Statutes....

...But denying appellant the type of information he seeks here is beyond the legitimate concerns of the Department and the state. However, this is not to suggest that the Department may not establish procedures under which inmates may be given access to or copies of information in Departmental files. Section 945.10(2) also unconstitutionally creates three classes of people in regards to access to information held by the Department....

...same information in the hands of inmates is presumed harmful. The statute serves no purpose but to deny inmates access to information they have an interest and a right in seeing, particularly as it may affect their interests. Accordingly, we declare section 945.10(2), Florida Statutes (1985), to be unconstitutional....

...ological objectives. The regulation was an exaggerated response to security concerns, leaving no easy alternatives to the regulation that would accommodate the right to marry while imposing a de minimis burden on the pursuit of security objectives. .Section 945.10(1), Florida Statutes, which is not challenged here, provides that the Department "shall promulgate rules and regulations stating what portions of its files are considered confidential ......

...uly confidential and deserving of nondisclosure to inmates and to the public in general. . In Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. v. Florida Dept, of Corrections, 50 Fla.Supp. 97 (Fla. 2d Cir.Ct.1980), (authored by then-Circuit Judge Joanos), section 945.10(2) was held to be an unconstitutional denial of equal protection under Art....

...The appellant further says he had no way of learning that the Commission was relying on the alleged gambling conviction since that information was contained in a post sentence investigation report in the Department of Corrections’ files to which he had no access. See § 945.10(2), Fla.Stat....

...e United States Constitution on cruel and unusual punishment will be violated if he is incompetent at the time of his execution; (9) Florida’s lethal injection method constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment; and (10) section 945.10, Florida Statutes, which prohibits Appellant from knowing the identities of his execution team, violates his rights under provisions of the federal and Florida Constitutions. The circuit court denied Appellant’s later request to a...

...ing the - 25 - Eighth Amendment). Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief on this claim. H. Execution Team Prohibition Appellant contends that section 945.10, Florida Statutes, which prevents a defendant from knowing the identities of his executioners, is unconstitutional....

access to that report under the provisions of section 945.10. Finally, he has no right to be present at

...2011) (recognizing that Florida’s lethal injection protocol has remained essentially unaltered since this Court’s decision in Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326, 349 (Fla. 2007), holding such protocol to be constitutional). B. Lethal Injection Procedures, Coupled with Section 945.10, Florida Statutes, Which Prohibits Deparvine From Knowing the Identity of Specified Members of the Execution Team, Violate His Constitutional Rights. Deparvine alleges that section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2013), is unconstitutional because it prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the members of the execution team and the executioners, thus precluding him from determining the adequacy of their qualifications and training. The postconviction court summarily denied this claim. Deparvine does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Because we have repeatedly rejected challenges to the constitutionality of section 945.10 on the merits, we affirm the postconviction court’s summary denial of this claim....

...McKire’s petition to compel the Department of Corrections to provide him certain departmental documents. We note, however, that while inmates possess a necessarily restricted access to documents and must follow enumerated procedures to obtain them, these hurdles do not mean inmate access is non-existent. See § 945.10(3), Fla....

...t to prejudicial remarks during the prosecutor’s closing argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the combination of the procedural and substantive errors during the guilt and penalty phases deprived Robards of a fair trial; (5) section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2006), which prohibits a defendant from knowing the identity of the execution team members, is unconstitutional; and (6) Robards may be incompetent at the time of execution....