Petitioner Edward Thomas James is scheduled to be executed by the State of Florida on March 20, 2025, based on a non-unanimous jury sentencing verdict. In denying Mr. James' claim that such an execution would violate the Eighth Amendment, the Florida Supreme Court implicitly relied upon a unique state constitutional provision precluding it from recognizing any protection against cruel and unusual punishment that has not been mandated verbatim by this Court. James v. State, -- So. 3d – (Fla. Mar. 13, 2025) (App. A).

Mr. James' death sentences are the byproduct of fundamental constitutional errors. Florida allowed Mr. James to languish without counsel for over a decade and arbitrarily refused to reinstate his appeals despite allowing reinstatement for similarly situated individuals, which permanently frustrated Mr. James' ability to obtain substantive review of his constitutional claims and violated his right to due process.

Mr. James raises the following issues in this petition:

1. Whether a state law that prohibits Florida courts from considering evolving standards of decency may preclude Mr. James from raising a claim that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment because his death sentences were non-unanimous?

2. Whether the Florida Courts' failure to reconsider Mr. James' timeliness rulings and the competency of his 2003 waiver treated Mr. James differently from other similar individuals and denied him his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments?

Whether a state law prohibiting Florida courts from considering evolving standards of decency may preclude a death row inmate from challenging a non-unanimous jury sentencing verdict under the Eighth Amendment