Aramis Donell Ayala, etc. v. Rick Scott, Governor
224 So. 3d 755 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A State Attorney's blanket policy of refusing to seek a legally available sentence, such as the death penalty, in any case does not constitute a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion and provides the Governor with "good and sufficient reason" under Florida law to reassign those cases to another prosecutor.
Facts:
- Aramis Donell Ayala, the State Attorney for Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, held a press conference on March 15, 2017.
- At the conference, Ayala announced a new, office-wide policy that she would not seek the death penalty in any cases handled by her office.
- Ayala stated this policy was because pursuing death sentences was not in the 'best interest of the community or in the best interest of justice,' even in cases that 'absolutely deserve[d]' the penalty.
- In response to Ayala's announcement, Governor Rick Scott issued a series of executive orders.
- These orders reassigned the prosecution of all death-penalty eligible cases in the Ninth Circuit from Ayala to Brad King, the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
- The Governor's orders did not direct King to seek the death penalty in any specific case.
Procedural Posture:
- Governor Rick Scott issued executive orders reassigning death-penalty eligible cases from State Attorney Ayala to State Attorney King.
- Ayala sought a stay of the reassignment orders in the Ninth Judicial Circuit (trial court), which was denied.
- Ayala then filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto directly with the Florida Supreme Court, challenging the Governor's authority to issue the reassignment orders.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a State Attorney's blanket policy of refusing to seek the death penalty in any eligible case constitute 'good and sufficient reason' under section 27.14(1), Florida Statutes, for the Governor to reassign those cases to another State Attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Lawson, J.
Yes. A State Attorney's blanket refusal to seek the death penalty in any eligible case provides the Governor with 'good and sufficient reason' to reassign those cases. The court reasoned that the Governor has a constitutional duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' and that section 27.14(1) grants him broad authority to reassign cases to fulfill this duty. The majority held that Ayala's blanket policy was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion but rather a refusal to exercise discretion at all, tantamount to a functional veto of Florida's death penalty statute. True discretion requires individualized, case-by-case determinations, which Ayala's policy precluded. Because the Governor's action was not arbitrary and did not direct the new prosecutor on how to proceed, it was a valid exercise of his authority to ensure Florida law remained an option.
Dissenting - Pariente, J.
No. The State Attorney's decision to not seek the death penalty does not provide 'good and sufficient reason' for the Governor to remove her from the cases. The dissent argued that State Attorneys are independently elected constitutional officers with the discretion to decide which punishments to seek within the confines of the law. Florida law makes the death penalty an option, not a mandate; therefore, choosing to seek life imprisonment without parole in all capital cases is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The Governor's action was an overreach that fundamentally undermines the constitutional role of a duly elected State Attorney and interferes with her decisions regarding the allocation of her office's resources, simply because he disagreed with her policy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of prosecutorial discretion in relation to the executive authority of the Governor. It establishes the precedent that a prosecutor's discretion, while broad, does not extend to implementing a blanket policy that categorically refuses to consider a specific, lawful penalty authorized by the legislature. The ruling affirms the Governor's power to intervene under such circumstances to ensure state laws are 'faithfully executed,' potentially impacting future prosecutors who might consider similar office-wide policies on sentencing.
