final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Elizabeth Metzger, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 431982CF000352C.
B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Leslie T.
Campbell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach,
Harrison, III, Monticello, for appellee.
State appeals an order granting the defendant's motion to
suppress. It argues the trial court erred in granting the
motion without an evidentiary hearing and in relying on
Parker v. State, 89 So.3d 844 (Fla. 2011). We agree
procedural history is unnecessary to our decision. Suffice it
to say, this case has had a long past. In 1982, the defendant
and co-defendants robbed, kidnapped, and murdered a
convenience store clerk. The defendant gave statements and
claimed a co-defendant stabbed and shot the victim.
1983, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. In
1985, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the conviction
and sentence. Parker v. State, 476 So.2d 134, 135
(Fla. 1985) ("Parker I"). In 1992, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held
that the defendant's May 5, 1982 statement was
inadmissible. Parker v. Singletary, 974 F.2d 1562,
1574 (11th Cir. 1992) ("Parker IV"). The
federal court concluded, however, that the error was harmless
and affirmed an order denying habeas corpus relief.
1996, the trial court granted postconviction relief and
ordered a new penalty phase trial based on newly-discovered
evidence. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed this
ruling. State v. Parker, 721 So.2d 1147, 1151 (Fla.
1998) ("Parker V").
the second penalty phase trial, the defendant moved to
suppress his May 7, 1982 statement, arguing that it derived
from the inadmissible May 5, 1982 statement. The trial court
granted the State's motion to quash the motion to
suppress, and the defendant was again sentenced to death.
appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida relinquished
jurisdiction to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary
hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress the May 7,
1982 statement. Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270, 278
(Fla. 2004) ("Parker VI"). The issue was
whether the defendant reinitiated contact with police after
the May 5, 1982 statement.
than presenting testimony, defense counsel and the State
stipulated to the record and allowed the court to rule
without an evidentiary hearing. The trial court found the
defendant reinitiated contact with the police before the May
7, 1982 statement and knowingly and intelligently waived his
rights. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of
the motion to suppress and the death sentence. Id.
2006, the defendant filed another postconviction motion
claiming that his counsel was ineffective at the motion to
suppress hearing by stipulating to the use of the record,
which contained inadmissible hearsay. The trial court denied
appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida concluded that counsel
had been deficient, but found no prejudice to warrant
postconviction relief. Parker v. State, 89 So.3d
844, 850 (Fla. 2011) ("Parker VIII"). In
its decision, the supreme court explained: "[w]e
conclude that there would not have been competent,
substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding
that [the defendant] initiated the May 7 interview, absent
the stipulated-to hearsay statements." Id. at
867. The supreme court recognized that, but for counsel's
deficiency, the May 7, 1982 statement "would have been
suppressed." Id. at 868. Despite this, ...