James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2026-0449 ____________

JAMES AREN DUCKETT, Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________

No. SC2026-0450 ____________

JAMES AREN DUCKETT, Petitioner,

STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

July 8, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Nearly four decades ago, James Aren Duckett was convicted of

the sexual battery and first-degree murder of eleven-year-old Teresa

McAbee. For the latter crime, he was sentenced to death. On February 27, 2026, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a warrant

scheduling Duckett’s execution for March 31, 2026.

Following issuance of the death warrant, Duckett submitted

several filings, including a motion for postconviction DNA testing

pursuant to section 925.11, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.853. The circuit court granted that motion.

Subsequently, Duckett filed his fifth successive motion for

postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.851. Before DNA testing was finalized, the circuit court

summarily denied that motion. Duckett appealed that order and

moved for a stay of execution. He also petitioned for a writ of

habeas corpus and requested oral argument.

On March 26, 2026, we stayed Duckett’s execution to allow for

DNA testing to be completed. Later, the laboratory carrying out the

testing reported its findings. According to the Florida Department

of Law Enforcement (FDLE), those findings were inconclusive.

Duckett requested the full results of his DNA testing to allow for

further analysis. After this Court’s intervention, Duckett obtained

-2- those results and an analysis of the underlying data. 1 That

analysis, however, also concluded that the results were

inconclusive.

With these issues resolved, we now address Duckett’s appeal

and habeas petition. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

circuit court’s order summarily denying Duckett’s fifth successive

postconviction motion. We also deny his habeas petition. 2

Accordingly, we lift the stay of execution previously imposed and

decline to hold oral argument.

I

On the night of May 11, 1987, Duckett was the only police

officer on patrol for the city of Mascotte, Florida. Between 10:00

and 11:00 p.m., he noticed a young girl, Teresa McAbee, loitering

outside a convenience store with a sixteen-year-old boy. After

asking the store clerk for Teresa’s name and age, Duckett

approached Teresa and ultimately sat her in the front passenger

seat of his patrol car—the last place she was seen alive. The next

1. See Duckett v. State (Duckett VI), 431 So. 3d 990, 992 (Fla. 2026).

2. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.

-3- morning, her body was found in a lake less than a mile from the

store. According to the medical examiner, Teresa had been sexually

assaulted, strangled, and drowned.

Circumstantial evidence gathered by investigators implicated

Duckett as the perpetrator. Among other things, unique tracks

found at the murder scene matched tires from Duckett’s patrol car.

The police also discovered Teresa’s and Duckett’s comingled

fingerprints on the hood of his car, even though he denied having

seen her sit there.

In light of these facts and others, a jury found Duckett guilty

of first-degree murder and sexual battery. As to the first-degree

murder conviction, the jury recommended he receive the death

penalty by an eight-to-four vote. Subsequently, the trial court

found two aggravating circumstances: (1) that Duckett murdered

Teresa McAbee during the commission of, or immediately after, a

sexual battery; and (2) that her murder was especially heinous,

atrocious, or cruel. Weighing those aggravators against the

mitigating evidence offered by the defense, the court accepted the

jury’s recommendation and sentenced Duckett to death.

-4- Duckett appealed to this Court, raising both guilt- and

penalty-phase claims, but we affirmed his convictions and death

sentence. Duckett v. State, 568 So. 2d 891, 891 (Fla. 1990). Since

then, Duckett has unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in

both state and federal court. See Duckett v. State, 918 So. 2d 224,

227 (Fla. 2005) (affirming denial of initial postconviction motion and

denying habeas petition); State v. Duckett, Nos. 87-CF-1347(01), 88-

CF-0262 (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. June 9, 2008) (denying first successive

postconviction motion, no appeal taken); Duckett v. McDonough, 701

F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1250 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (denying federal habeas

petition); Duckett v. State, 148 So. 3d 1163, 1166 (Fla. 2014)

(affirming denial of second successive postconviction motion);

Duckett v. State, 231 So. 3d 393, 395 (Fla. 2017) (affirming denial of

third successive postconviction motion); Duckett v. State, 260 So. 3d

230, 230-31 (Fla. 2018) (affirming denial of fourth successive

postconviction motion).

On February 27, 2026, the Governor signed Duckett’s death

warrant. This prompted Duckett to file a motion, which he later

amended, seeking postconviction DNA testing under section 925.11

-5- and rule 3.853.3 Duckett v. State (Duckett VI), 431 So. 3d 990, 992

(Fla. 2026). As we explained in our Duckett VI opinion:

The sample he wanted tested was a 1987 swab from the victim’s underwear mounted on a slide (called “Q-6(3)”), which had continuously been in the State’s possession. The swab contained a small number of sperm heads. Duckett contended that DNA testing would show that the sperm was not his, meaning that someone else committed the murder and he is actually innocent. Over two decades ago, during Duckett’s initial postconviction proceedings, we were informed that certain items of clothing introduced into evidence could possibly be tested for DNA, including Q-6(3). We relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court to allow for determination of “whether there in fact existed clothing that could be tested for DNA.” On remand, the examiner for FDLE determined that because Q-6(3) had deteriorated and contained too few sperm heads, the DNA testing methods then available would not have produced any conclusive results. The examiner added that any attempt to test the sample would have destroyed it. Outside agencies confirmed the FDLE examiner’s concerns. Thus, no testing was performed on Q-6(3).

Id. (citations omitted).

3. Duckett also filed demands for public records from several agencies under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852(h) and (i). After a hearing, the circuit court granted some of those demands, ordering the relevant agencies to produce the records by the scheduled deadline. The court, however, denied the rest of the demands based on the agencies’ respective objections. Duckett has not challenged these denials on appeal.

-6- Noting these background facts, Duckett argued that the

sample should be tested using newer technology capable of

producing more reliable DNA results from small, deteriorated

samples. The State agreed that testing could be conducted,

and the circuit court granted Duckett’s rule 3.853 motion. Id.

The sample “was ultimately sent to a private laboratory

requested by the State called DNA Labs International, Inc.

(DLI).” Id. at 992-93.

Two days after his motion for DNA testing was granted,

Duckett filed his fifth successive postconviction motion under rule

3.851, in which he raised two claims. For his first claim, he

asserted that (1) his impending execution is unconstitutional

because he is actually innocent; (2) the forthcoming DNA testing

results would provide newly discovered evidence of his actual

innocence;4 and (3) newly discovered evidence shows the State

violated Brady5 by failing to disclose a 2012 letter sent from the

4. “Per our scheduling order and absent a stay, Duckett was required to file his successive postconviction motion before DNA testing results were available.” Id. at 993 n.4.

5. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

-7- U.S. Department of Justice to the State Attorney’s Office regarding

expert testimony offered at his guilt-phase trial. As for his second

claim, Duckett argued that the truncated nature of the warrant

process is unconstitutional. He also moved for a stay of execution.

Although DNA testing was not yet complete, the circuit court

issued an order summarily denying Duckett’s successive

postconviction motion and declining to stay his execution. Duckett

VI, 431 So. 3d at 993. Duckett appealed that order. Id. At the

same time, he moved for a stay of execution and petitioned for a

writ of habeas corpus. Id. We granted Duckett’s motion to stay his

execution. See Duckett v. State, 428 So. 3d 40, 40 (Fla. 2026)

(citing § 922.06(1), Fla. Stat.).

Testing was completed the next day. FDLE filed DLI’s report

and relayed in an email that the report indicated the testing was

“inconclusive.” Duckett VI, 431 So. 3d at 993. This was because

“neither FDLE nor DLI ha[d] the capability to complete the testing

process by performing a statistical analysis on the data that was

generated.” Id. Duckett requested that FDLE and DLI release the

-8- underlying testing data to him so that such an analysis could be

performed. Id. at 994. 6 The circuit court denied this request. Id.

On appeal, we partially reversed, holding that the circuit court

erred in denying Duckett the full results of the DNA testing. Id. at

997. 7 Accordingly, we remanded for the underlying data to be

provided to Duckett so that the statistical analysis, referenced by

FDLE, could be performed. Id.

Subsequently, Duckett sent the underlying data to a

bioinformaticist for analysis.8 That expert opined that “the dataset

did not contain sufficient information to support a reliable

contributor conclusion.” He added: “I cannot state, to a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty, that James Duckett either is or is not

6. Additionally, Duckett again filed public records demands under rule 3.852(i), this time seeking the testing data as well as DLI’s testing process and protocols. Id.

7. We affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Duckett’s public records demands. Id.

8. The State also had the data sent for analysis by another bioinformaticist. We do not rely on that expert’s report in reaching our conclusions here.

-9- a contributor to the evidentiary DNA mixture. The available data

are insufficient to support either an inclusion or an exclusion.” 9

Upon receiving this analysis, Duckett requested an evidentiary

hearing on DLI’s testing process. The circuit court denied this

request, reasoning that the rule 3.853 motion had already been

“fully resolved,” Duckett had received the complete results of the

DNA testing, and he had not filed a new rule 3.851 motion seeking

postconviction relief. The court denied Duckett’s subsequent

motion for rehearing. 10

Accordingly, we now turn to Duckett’s pending appeal and

habeas petition.

II

We begin with Duckett’s appeal of the circuit court’s order

9. In Duckett VI, we recognized this outcome was possible. See 431 So. 3d at 995 n.11 (“[I]t is possible that, after conducting the statistical analysis that FDLE suggests is possible in this case, the entity performing the analysis will be unable to offer a definitive conclusion based on a comparison of Duckett’s known DNA and the profile generated from the sample.”).

10. Duckett appealed the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing, but we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

- 10 - summarily denying his fifth successive postconviction motion. 11 We

review de novo the summary denial of this motion and affirm if the

claims raised therein “are untimely, procedurally barred, legally

insufficient, or refuted by the record.” Hutchinson v. State, 416 So.

3d 273, 279 (Fla.) (citing Cole v. State, 392 So. 3d 1054, 1060-61

(Fla. 2024)), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1980 (2025); see also Fla. R.

Crim. P. 3.851(f)(5)(B).

A

First, Duckett argues that the warrant proceedings have

denied him due process of law. He objects to the truncated and

“surprise” nature of the warrant process as well as the circuit

court’s handling of issues related to the DNA testing. In particular,

he asserts that the court violated his due process rights by denying

his fifth successive postconviction motion before DNA results

became available. This claim fails.

To the extent Duckett bases this claim on the warrant period’s

length and unanticipated issuance, we have rejected these same

arguments countless times before. See Jones v. State, 419 So. 3d

11. Duckett does not appeal the circuit court’s denial of his Brady claim.

- 11 - 619, 625-26 (Fla.) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 79

(2025). Notably, given our stay of execution, Duckett’s warrant

period has lasted almost four months—far longer than other

warrant periods that we have found constitutionally acceptable.

See id. at 625 (rejecting claim that thirty-day warrant period

violates due process).

Duckett also directs his due process arguments at the circuit

court’s handling of the DNA testing process during the warrant

period. But these arguments, assuming they have any merit, have

been rendered moot by later developments. Although the circuit

court summarily denied Duckett’s fifth successive postconviction

motion before DNA testing was completed, we then stayed his

execution. Thereafter, we ordered that Duckett be provided the full

results of his testing so that a statistical analysis could be

performed on the underlying data. See Duckett VI, 431 So. 3d at

997. Duckett obtained the analysis he sought, and the results were

not favorable to him. In light of all this, we are satisfied that the

requirements of due process were met. See Barwick v. State, 361

So. 3d 785, 790 (Fla. 2023) (“Due process requires that a defendant

be given notice and an opportunity to be heard on a matter before it

- 12 - is decided.” (quoting Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1, 27 (Fla. 2016))).

B

Second, Duckett contends that he is actually innocent and his

execution would therefore violate the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This claim is meritless.

As an initial matter, Duckett does not have a viable newly

discovered evidence claim based on the DNA testing results. To

prove such a claim, Duckett must show two things: (1) that the

evidence was not known by the trial court, himself, or his counsel

at the time of trial, and that neither he nor his counsel could have

known of it by the exercise of diligence; and (2) that the evidence is

“of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on

retrial.” Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 797 (Fla. 2007) (quoting

Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998)). Assuming he has

made the first showing, he has failed to make the second. Based on

the analysis conducted by Duckett’s own expert, the DNA testing

results were inconclusive. Thus, he has not shown that this DNA

evidence, considered alongside all the evidence introduced at trial

and throughout his postconviction proceedings, would probably

lead to an acquittal on retrial.

- 13 - So, Duckett is left to assert a freestanding actual innocence

claim based on the evidence he has presented throughout his

postconviction proceedings. However, “Florida does not recognize

an independent claim of actual innocence in postconviction

proceedings.” Sweet v. State, 293 So. 3d 448, 453 (Fla. 2020)

(citing Elledge v. State, 911 So. 2d 57, 78 (Fla. 2005)). And as we

have held, “Florida’s refusal to recognize postconviction actual

innocence claims does not violate the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at

454 (citing Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1088-89 (Fla.

2008)).

Accordingly, Duckett is not entitled to relief on any of the

grounds asserted on appeal, and we affirm the circuit court’s order.

III

We now consider Duckett’s habeas petition, in which he again

brings a claim of actual innocence and further argues that this

Court’s piecemeal adjudication of the claims raised throughout his

various postconviction proceedings denied him due process. He

contends that judicial intervention is necessary to prevent a

manifest injustice based on the cumulative effect of the alleged

errors made in disposing of his prior postconviction claims.

- 14 - The claims raised in Duckett’s habeas petition essentially

duplicate those on appeal, and they fail for the same reasons given

above. Insofar as he seeks to relitigate our decisions in his earlier

postconviction proceedings, his claims are procedurally barred.

See Bates v. State, 416 So. 3d 312, 322 (Fla.) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P.

3.851(e)), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 66 (2025).

Accordingly, we deny Duckett’s habeas petition.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the summary denial of

Duckett’s fifth successive postconviction motion. Additionally, we

deny his habeas petition. Having denied relief, we lift our stay of

execution. No motion for rehearing will be considered. The

mandate shall issue immediately.

It is so ordered.

COURIEL, C.J., and MUÑIZ, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, SASSO, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Lake County, Brian Jerome Welke, Judge Case No. 351987CF001347AXXXXX And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus

Suzanne Keffer, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Brittney Lacy, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Mary Elizabeth Wells,

- 15 - Special Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Courtney M. Hammer, Staff Attorney, Office of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

for Appellant/Petitioner

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Nicole Rochelle Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, and Naomi Nichols, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida,

for Appellee/Respondent

- 16 -