Jeremiah M. Rodgers v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: November 21, 2019
• Docket: SC19-241
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC19-241 ____________

JEREMIAH M. RODGERS, Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

November 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Jeremiah M. Rodgers, a prisoner under sentence of death, who now goes by

the name Jenna Rodgers, appeals the circuit court’s summary denial of a

successive postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Although Rodgers previously waived postconviction proceedings and counsel and

this Court affirmed the validity of the waiver on appeal, Rodgers now argues that a

diagnosis of gender dysphoria is newly discovered evidence that Rodgers was

incompetent to plead guilty to first-degree murder, see Rodgers v. State (Rodgers

I), 934 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006), to waive a penalty phase jury, see Rodgers v. State (Rodgers II), 3 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 2009), and to waive postconviction proceedings

and counsel, Rodgers v. State (Rodgers III), No. SC11-1401, 104 So. 3d 1087,

2012 WL 5381782 (Fla. Oct. 17, 2012) (unpublished), thereby invalidating this

Court’s prior decision affirming the denial of Hurst 1 relief based on Rodgers’

waiver of a penalty phase jury, see Rodgers v. State (Rodgers IV), 242 So. 3d 276

(Fla. 2018). The circuit court found Rodgers’ motion untimely and summarily

denied it. We agree and affirm. 2

“[T]o be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the

successive rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the

date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.” Jimenez

v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1064 (Fla. 2008); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(1)-

(2). It was not. Rather, the record shows that Rodgers knew of the gender

dysphoria diagnosis at some point between a February 26, 2016, evaluation by a

psychiatrist and the filing of the January 11, 2017, successive postconviction

1. Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016); Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016).

2. “A successive rule 3.851 motion may be denied without an evidentiary hearing if the records of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(f)(5)(B). This Court reviews the circuit court’s decision to summarily deny a successive rule 3.851 motion de novo, accepting the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record, and affirming the ruling if the record conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief.” Walton v. State, 3 So. 3d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 2009).

-2- motion at issue in Rodgers IV, in which Rodgers argued that gender dysphoria

rendered Rodgers incompetent to enter prior waivers, including the penalty phase

jury waiver that we held, in Rodgers IV, precludes Hurst relief. Yet, Rodgers

“d[id] not raise . . . gender dysphoria as a claim of newly discovered evidence or

ineffective assistance of counsel” in that proceeding. Rodgers IV, 242 So. 3d at

279 (Pariente, J., concurring in result). Thus, the December 4, 2018, successive

postconviction motion at issue in this appeal—in which Rodgers alleged that

gender dysphoria is newly discovered evidence of incompetency at the time of the

guilty plea and waivers—is time-barred.

Moreover, even without the time bar, the summary denial was proper

because the evidence at issue is not newly discovered. Generally, to prevail on a

newly discovered evidence claim, two requirements must be met: “(1) the evidence

must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of

trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have

known of it by the use of diligence; and (2) the newly discovered evidence must be

of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Reed v.

State, 116 So. 3d 260, 264 (Fla. 2013) (citing Jones v. State (Jones II), 709 So. 2d

512, 521 (Fla. 1998)). In Rodgers’ case, the first prong of Jones II ends the

inquiry.

-3- As detailed in Justice Pariente’s concurring in result opinion in Rodgers IV,

the record conclusively establishes that Rodgers’ symptoms that are now attributed

to gender dysphoria (e.g., severe depression, self-mutilation, reported suicidality)

were known to the courts that accepted and affirmed the validity of Rodgers’ plea

and waivers. See Rodgers IV, 242 So. 3d at 277 (Pariente, J., concurring in result)

(“[B]oth the trial court and this Court were aware of Rodgers’ long history of

mental illness in determining Rodgers’ competency to make the waivers and in

reviewing Rodgers’ waivers, respectively . . . .”); see also id. at 278-80 (detailing

the “record indicating severe mental illness” in Rodgers’ case). The medical

community’s subsequent assignment of a name to the cause of known symptoms is

not newly discovered evidence, but even assuming that it could be, the record

conclusively establishes that Rodgers failed to diligently pursue this claim. As

explained above, Rodgers became aware of the gender dysphoria diagnosis at some

point between February 2016 and January 2017 and alleged that gender dysphoria

caused incompetency in a January 2017 successive postconviction motion, but

waited until December 2018 to raise a newly discovered evidence claim predicated

upon gender dysphoria. This falls short of the due diligence that Jones II requires.

Accordingly, because Rodgers’ motion is time-barred and, in any event, not

based upon newly discovered evidence, we affirm the circuit court’s summary

denial. In so doing, we note that because Rodgers validly waived postconviction

-4- proceedings and counsel, future filings should not be made on Rodgers’ behalf in

the circuit court without first seeking leave from the circuit court and explaining

how the appointment of counsel and the proposed filing are authorized in light of

Rodgers’ valid waiver.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Santa Rosa County, John Franklin Simon, Jr., Judge - Case No. 571998CF000274XXAXMX

Terri L. Backhus, Chief, and Kimberly Sharkey, Attorney, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellant

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee

-5-