http://www.angel-diaz.us/lethal/Filed_08-10-2007_MotionBeHeard.pdf
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
NO. SC06-2391
IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE,
Petitioner,
v.
BILL McCOLLUM, ET AL.,
Respondents.
__________________________/
MOTION FOR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
COMES NOW, IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE, Petitioner, by and through
undersigned counsel and moves this Court to allow him the
opportunity to be heard and as grounds therefore asserts:
undersigned counsel and moves this Court to allow him the
opportunity to be heard and as grounds therefore asserts:
1. On August 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate
the Scheduling Order Based On Good Cause showing good cause as
to why additional time is required to conclude the proceedings
and for the trial court to enter a final order.
2. On August 10, 2007, Petitioner discovered on this
Court’s online docket that the Respondent had filed a Response
to Petitioner’s motion. At the time of filing this Motion for
Opportunity to be Heard, Mr. Lightbourne had yet to receive a
service copy via facsimile as certified by Respondents.
3. The Respondent’s response makes several
misrepresentations and leaves out pertinent information from the
record below. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court
allow him the opportunity to be heard based on the State’s
misrepresentations.
the Scheduling Order Based On Good Cause showing good cause as
to why additional time is required to conclude the proceedings
and for the trial court to enter a final order.
2. On August 10, 2007, Petitioner discovered on this
Court’s online docket that the Respondent had filed a Response
to Petitioner’s motion. At the time of filing this Motion for
Opportunity to be Heard, Mr. Lightbourne had yet to receive a
service copy via facsimile as certified by Respondents.
3. The Respondent’s response makes several
misrepresentations and leaves out pertinent information from the
record below. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court
allow him the opportunity to be heard based on the State’s
misrepresentations.
4. Specifically, the Respondents represent that after
extensive evidentiary hearings in this case Mr. Lightbourne
“finished presenting the evidence he sought to produce” on or
about July 21, 2007. This is completely inaccurate. On July
21, 2007, Mr. Lightbourne filed a Motion to Leave the
Evidentiary Hearing Open based in part on the disclosure of
public records just 5 days earlier and the fact that the
Department of Corrections had been ordered to comply with Mr.
Lightbourne’s public records demand on July 20, 2007. See
Attached Motion to Leave Evidentiary Hearing Open. The circuit
court orally granted Mr. Lightbourne’s motion on July 22, 2007.
5. To date, Mr. Lightbourne has yet to receive records
responsive to the entirety of his demand to the Department of
Corrections and filed a Motion to Compel those records on August
9, 2007. While the Respondents indicate that the “Department of
Corrections is in the process of addressing the additional
public records requests”, is Mr. Lightbourne to go forward with
a final hearing and then receive the information ordered to be
turned over by the circuit court when the Department of
Corrections gets around to it?
6. Further, the current requests which are outstanding do
not address any new public records requests based on the
Department of Corrections August 1, 2007 lethal injection
procedures.
not address any new public records requests based on the
Department of Corrections August 1, 2007 lethal injection
procedures.
7. While the Respondent dutifully recites the evidence
presented thus far in the proceedings below, the Respondent
neglects to indicate that the preliminary ruling by the circuit
on July 22, 2007 was based on the court’s own concerns regarding
the procedures at that point in the proceedings. At no time has
Mr. Lightbourne had the opportunity to provide argument to the
circuit court as to his constitutional concerns with respect to
the evidence presented. Therefore, the proceedings now
scheduled for August 28-31, 2007, are not simply to determine if
the Department of Corrections August 1, 2007 procedures comport
with the circuit court’s ruling. Mr. Lightbourne is entitled to
present evidence and argument on yet another new procedure by
the Department of Corrections.
8. At its core, due process means that a party has an
opportunity to be heard. In light of the Respondents’
arguments, Petitioner must be allowed to be heard.
opportunity to be heard. In light of the Respondents’
arguments, Petitioner must be allowed to be heard.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail and facsimile to
Carolyn Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, The Capitol, Tallahasse, Florida, 32399-1050,
Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Assistant Attorney General, 444 Seabreeze
Blvd., 5th Floor, Daytona Beach, FL 32118; Rock E. Hooker,
Assistant State Attorney, 19 NW Pine Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475;
foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail and facsimile to
Carolyn Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, The Capitol, Tallahasse, Florida, 32399-1050,
Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Assistant Attorney General, 444 Seabreeze
Blvd., 5th Floor, Daytona Beach, FL 32118; Rock E. Hooker,
Assistant State Attorney, 19 NW Pine Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475;
Maximillian J. Changus, Assistant General Counsel, Florida
Department of Corrections, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee,
FL 32399; and the Honorable Carven D. Angel, Circuit Court
Judge, Marion County Judicial Center, 110 NW First Avenue,
Ocala, FL 34475 on this ____ day of August, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
SUZANNE MYERS KEFFER
Assistant CCRC
Florida Bar No. 0150177
ANNA-LIISA NIXON
Staff Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0026283
OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL
COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL
101 N.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 713-1284
COUNSEL FOR MR. LIGHTBOURNE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment