Supreme Court of Florida ____________
No. SC2025-1127 ____________
KAYLE B. BATES, Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________
No. SC2025-1128 ____________
KAYLE B. BATES, Petitioner,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
August 12, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Over four decades ago, Kayle Barrington Bates robbed,
attempted to rape, and brutally murdered Janet Renee White. For
this conduct, a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder (and other crimes) and recommended a sentence of death. Following
that recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to death. On
July 18, 2025, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a warrant for the
execution of this sentence. Bates then filed his fourth successive
motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court denied all his
claims, and Bates appealed. Exercising our mandatory review
jurisdiction, we affirm. We also deny Bates’ petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, a stay, and oral argument. See art. V, §§ 3(b)(1),
(9), Fla. Const.
I
In June 1982, Bates, a delivery driver, stopped at the
insurance office where Renee 1 worked. After briefly speaking with
Renee, Bates left. Later, Renee also left the office and met her
husband for lunch.
While Renee was gone, Bates returned to the office. He hid his
truck in the woods and broke into the building. There he waited for
Renee. When she arrived, the office phone was ringing. As Renee
answered the phone, she spotted Bates. Startled and terrified, she
1. The victim was known by her middle name.
-2- let out a “bone-chilling” scream. Bates attacked her, but Renee
fought back. Despite her best efforts, Bates overpowered Renee and
forced her into the woods behind the office.
Once there, Bates brutally beat her, inflicting over thirty
contusions, bruises, abrasions, and lacerations. He ripped off her
wedding ring, causing serious injury to her finger. He attempted to
rape her. He strangled her. And while Renee was still alive, Bates
stabbed her twice in the chest. She died from the totality of her
wounds a few minutes later.
Bates was apprehended near the office about twenty minutes
after the deadly attack began. Law enforcement found Renee’s ring
in Bates’ pocket despite his efforts to conceal it. Bates admitted to
carrying Renee out of the office to the woods and engaging in one-
sided sexual conduct with her. Bates also told his wife that he had
killed a woman.
Consistent with Bates’ sexual-conduct admission, both his
and Renee’s underwear contained evidence of semen. Bates’ hat
and knife case were located not far from where Renee’s body was
found. Cloth fibers matching Bates’ pants were recovered on
Renee’s clothing. A watch pin was found in the insurance office—
-3- the same type of pin missing from Bates’ watch. Law enforcement
also located footprints matching Bates’ shoes behind the insurance
office.
The State charged Bates with first-degree murder, kidnapping,
sexual battery, and armed robbery. Bates v. State (Bates I), 465 So.
2d 490, 491 (Fla. 1985). A jury found Bates guilty of first-degree
murder, kidnapping, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery
and, after the penalty phase, recommended a death sentence. Id.
At sentencing, the trial court found five statutory aggravators and
one nonstatutory mitigator. Id. at 492. Ultimately, Bates was
sentenced to death for first-degree murder, two life sentences for
kidnapping and armed robbery, and fifteen years for attempted
sexual battery. Id. at 491.
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Bates’ convictions but
vacated his death sentence based on the conclusion that two of the
aggravating factors were not adequately supported by the evidence.
Id. at 493. In light of the vacatur, the Court remanded for the trial
court to reweigh the remaining aggravators with the mitigator. Id.
at 492-93.
-4- On remand, and after hearing additional mitigating evidence,
the trial court again imposed a death sentence. We affirmed. Bates
v. State (Bates II), 506 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 1987). Two years
later—after Governor Bob Martinez signed a death warrant for
Bates—Bates moved for postconviction relief and a stay of
execution. See Bates v. Dugger (Bates III), 604 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla.
1992). The circuit court granted Bates a new penalty phase but
denied all claims seeking to vacate the murder conviction. Id. On
appeal, this Court affirmed the lower court in all respects. Id. at
458-59.
At his ensuing penalty phase, the jury recommended death by
a nine-to-three vote. Bates v. State (Bates IV), 750 So. 2d 6, 9 (Fla.
1999). The trial court, for its part, found three aggravators:
(1) Bates committed the murder while committing two other serious
felonies; (2) Bates committed the murder for pecuniary gain; and
(3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel (HAC).
Id. The court found two statutory mitigators: (1) no significant prior
criminal history; and (2) his relatively young age when he
committed the murder (24 years old). Id. Additionally, the court
found eight nonstatutory mitigators: (1) Bates’ emotional distress at
-5- the time he committed the murder; (2) Bates’ ability to follow the
law was impaired to a certain degree; (3) Bates’ family background;
(4) Bates’ military service; (5) Bates’ patriotism and service as a
soldier; (6) Bates’ low-average IQ; (7) Bates’ love and support for his
wife and children; and (8) Bates’ good employment record. Id. After
making these findings, the trial court weighed the aggravators and
mitigators, ultimately determining that the aggravating factors
outweighed the mitigating circumstances and thus warranted
imposition of the death penalty. Id. Bates appealed, but we
affirmed his sentence. Id. at 18.
After the United States Supreme Court denied review, 2 Bates
initiated a new batch of postconviction challenges directed at his
conviction and sentence. Bates first claimed various constitutional
and state-law violations and requested DNA testing. Bates v. State
(Bates V), 3 So. 3d 1091, 1098-1106 (Fla. 2009). We affirmed the
circuit court’s order denying his claims and his DNA-related
request. Id. at 1105-06. We also denied Bates’ habeas corpus
petition. Id. at 1107.
2. Bates v. Florida, 531 U.S. 835 (2000).
-6- Bates then turned to the federal courts, asking for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. But the District Court for the
Northern District of Florida denied relief, and the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed. Bates v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (Bates
VI), 768 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 577 U.S.
839 (2015).
Undaunted by these adverse rulings, Bates continued to seek
collateral relief. See Bates v. Jones (Bates VII), No. SC16-1199,
2016 WL 6205332, at *1 (Fla. July 18, 2016) (striking Bates’ habeas
petition without prejudice); Bates v. State (Bates VIII), 218 So. 3d
426, 427 (Fla. 2017) (affirming circuit court’s denial of Bates’
successive postconviction motion); Bates v. State (Bates IX), 238 So.
3d 98, 98-99 (Fla. 2018) (affirming circuit court’s denial of Bates’
successive postconviction motion and denying Bates’ habeas
petition); Bates v. State (Bates X), 398 So. 3d 406, 406-08 (Fla.
2024) (affirming circuit court’s denial of Bates’ successive
postconviction motion).
Bates also petitioned in federal court to reopen his habeas
proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Bates v.
Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (Bates XI), No. 5:09-cv-00081-MCR (N.D. Fla. July
-7- 24, 2025). Specifically, he requested that the court reassess his
federal habeas claims without applying the deferential standard
required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,
codified in part at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In Bates’ view, Loper
Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), rendered such
deference unconstitutional. The federal district court denied his
motion. Bates XI, No. 5:09-cv-00081-MCR, slip op. at 9, certificate
of appealability denied, No. 25-12588 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025).
This brings us to Bates’ fourth successive postconviction
motion—the motion at issue in this appeal. Bates raised
constitutional challenges to the warrant period’s length, the denial
of his public records requests, the clemency process, and his death
sentence. He also requested a stay. The circuit court denied relief
on all Bates’ claims and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing or
issue a stay.
Bates now appeals, challenging most of the adverse rulings
below. He also asks us to grant a stay of execution and issue a writ
of habeas corpus.
-8- II
We begin with Bates’ appeal. He challenges the circuit court’s
summary denial of his successive postconviction motion and its
denial of his public records requests. 3
A
Starting with the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851
claims, we review the summary denial of such claims de novo. As
we have recently reiterated, we will affirm the denial of successive
claims that are procedurally barred, untimely, legally insufficient,
or refuted by the record. See Hutchinson v. State, No. SC2025-
0517, 50 Fla. L. Weekly S71, S72, 2025 WL 1198037, at *3 (Fla.
Apr. 25), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1980 (2025).
Bates argues that the circuit court erred in denying his claim
that evidence of his organic brain damage was inadequately
considered during his second penalty phase. To support this claim,
Bates points to multiple alleged shortcomings at the penalty phase,
3. Bates also appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for a stay during pendency of these proceedings.
-9- including that counsel failed to present testimony from Dr. Barry
Crown and from lay witnesses who knew Bates and could have
testified to his diminished mental state at the time of the murder.
We reject this claim as untimely, procedurally barred, and
meritless.
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(d),
postconviction motions must be filed within one year of the
judgment and sentence becoming final. 4 Rule 3.851 provides a
narrow exception to this time bar for claims predicated on newly
discovered evidence. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2)(A). But, any
claims based on that evidence must still be filed within a year of the
date the evidence could have been discovered. Wainwright v. State,
411 So. 3d 392, 401 (Fla.), cert. denied, No. 24-7365, 2025 WL
1621505 (U.S. June 9, 2025).
Bates’ claim is untimely. He was resentenced in 1995, and he
could have raised these arguments in the thirty years since. He has
not offered any persuasive reason why this evidence is newly
discovered or timely now. See id.
4. Bates’ judgment and sentence became final in 2000.
- 10 - However, even assuming that timeliness would not preclude
relief, Bates faces another challenge. We have recognized that
claims previously raised and rejected on the merits cannot form a
basis of relief, and we have not hesitated to apply this bar in the
warrant context. See Barwick v. State, 361 So. 3d 785, 794-95
(Fla.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2452 (2023); Zakrzewski v. State, 50
Fla. L. Weekly S218, S220, 2025 WL 2047404, at *4 (Fla. July 22),
cert. denied, No. 25-5194, 2025 WL 2155601 (U.S. July 30, 2025).
Although Bates attempts to repackage his prior claims, he has
raised several of these arguments before, and we have repeatedly
denied relief.
Notably, on direct appeal, Bates claimed that his request for
additional experts should have been granted after Dr. Crown did
not testify. See Bates IV, 750 So. 2d at 15. This Court rejected that
argument, explaining that Bates could have presented Dr. Crown’s
testimony but chose not to. Id. at 15-17. In postconviction
proceedings, Bates also argued that penalty-phase counsel was
ineffective for not presenting Dr. Crown’s testimony. Bates V, 3 So.
3d at 1100. We affirmed the denial of this claim, explaining that
Bates’ counsel made an “informed, advised decision not to call Dr.
- 11 - Crown.” Id. at 1101. We also explained that even if counsel’s
performance had been deficient, Bates was not prejudiced, as Dr.
Crown’s testimony regarding the psychological state of Bates at the
time of the murder was merely cumulative of the other expert
testimony. Id. at 1101-02.
The same goes for Bates’ argument that he should have
received an evaluation from a neurologist, which his counsel
concedes has previously been raised. See Bates IV, 750 So. 2d at
15-17. Although he now revives the argument as an Eighth
Amendment claim, we reject it as procedurally barred. See
Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 793.
To the extent that Bates is raising new issues—including that
counsel should have better investigated and documented Bates’
mental state and presented more witnesses to testify about Bates’
mental state—he could have raised these issues in one of his four
prior postconviction motions. Three decades have passed since
Bates’ second penalty phase, and these claims are procedurally
barred. See, e.g., Atkins v. State, 663 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1995)
(holding that a procedural bar applies to issues which should have
been raised in prior collateral proceedings).
- 12 - Bates asks us to excuse the procedural bars and grant him
relief to avoid a manifest injustice. However, upon review of the
record, and consistent with our recent precedent, we find no
manifest injustice here. See, e.g., Owen v. State, 364 So. 3d 1017,
1026-27 (Fla.) (declining to find manifest injustice based on claims
of organic brain damage), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2633 (2023);
Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94, 105 (Fla.) (rejecting argument that
enforcing procedural bars would result in manifest injustice), cert.
denied, 143 S. Ct. 856 (2023).
This claim also fails on the merits. As we explained in our
prior opinions, Bates presented significant evidence regarding his
mental state at the time he committed the murder. See Bates V, 3
So. 3d at 1100-02. No additional evidence of brain damage would
have overcome the significant aggravators presented against Bates.
Nor does the Eighth Amendment grant “an absolute right to present
mitigating evidence at any time, regardless of its availability,
regardless of the defendant’s diligence in locating and presenting it,
and regardless of its strength or force.” Hutchinson, 50 Fla. L.
Weekly at S73, 2025 WL 1198037, at *5.
- 13 - 2
Bates also argues that the second penalty-phase court erred
when it refused to inform the jury that Bates would not receive
parole if sentenced to life, or that his other sentences guaranteed he
would remain incarcerated for the rest of his natural life. Bates has
made this argument multiple times. And each time, we have
rejected it. Bates IV, 750 So. 2d at 9-10; Bates V, 3 So. 3d at 1105
n.11. Accordingly, this claim is procedurally barred. 5 See, e.g.,
Zakrzewski, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S220, 2025 WL 2047404, at *4;
Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 792.
Recognizing the bar that our rulings on this issue pose, Bates
pivots and asks us to grant him due process relief to avoid a
manifest injustice. But consistent with our conclusion above, we
see no injustice (manifest or otherwise) in enforcing this bar. See
Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973, 977-78 (Fla.), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct.
1161 (2025); Gudinas v. State, No. SC2025-0794, 50 Fla. L. Weekly
S123, S126-27, 2025 WL 1692284, at *7-8 (Fla. June 17), cert.
5. This argument is also untimely under rule 3.851(d). See Wainwright, 411 So. 3d at 401.
- 14 - denied, No. 24-7457, 2025 WL 1739159 (U.S. June 24, 2025);
Dillbeck, 357 So. 3d at 105.
Bates next argues that he has a due process right to review
and rebut the evidence pertaining to his clemency proceedings. The
circuit court properly denied this claim.
We have recently rejected similar arguments in post-warrant
litigation. Gudinas, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S127-28, 2025 WL
1692284, at *8-9 (affirming the confidentiality of clemency records);
see also Zakrzewski, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S221, 2025 WL 2047404,
at *5 (reiterating that no specific procedures are mandated in
clemency proceedings). The executive has sole discretion in
exercising clemency powers and, “due to important considerations
about the separation of powers, we do not second-guess the
executive branch in matters of clemency in capital cases.”
Zakrzewski, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S221, 2025 WL 2047404, at *5;
see also Sullivan v. Askew, 348 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 1977). Bates
has provided no reason to revisit our prior decisions in this regard,
and we affirm the circuit court’s denial of this claim.
- 15 - 4
Bates also asserts that the length of the warrant period
violates his right to due process and counsel. A thirty-day warrant
period does not, in and of itself, deprive a capital defendant of the
rights Bates invokes. In post-warrant litigation, due process
requires a defendant be given notice and an opportunity to be
heard. Tanzi v. State, 407 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla.), cert. denied, 145
S. Ct. 1914 (2025). And the right to counsel only requires that the
defendant have “meaningful access to counsel and the courts after
his death warrant was signed.” Zakrzewski, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at
S220, 2025 WL 2047404, at *5. Accordingly, we have repeatedly
rejected such challenges to the length of the warrant period.
Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 789-90; Hutchinson, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at
S72-73, 2025 WL 1198037, at *4; Zakrzewski, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at
S220, 2025 WL 2047404, at *5; Bell v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly
S155, S163, 2025 WL 1874574, at *17 (Fla. July 8), cert. denied,
No. 25-5083, 2025 WL 1942498 (U.S. July 15, 2025). Our
precedent precludes the relief Bates seeks.
As part of this claim, Bates also argues that the circuit court’s
denial of his lethal injection discovery requests violates his
- 16 - constitutional rights. We have recently found comparable
arguments to be meritless. See Tanzi, 407 So. 3d at 392 (rejecting
argument that death-sentenced defendant had a constitutional
right to public records regarding lethal injection procedures during
the warrant period); Cole v. State, 392 So. 3d 1054, 1066 (Fla.), cert.
denied, 145 S. Ct. 109 (2024) (same). Applying this precedent, we
affirm the circuit court’s denial of Bates’ claim.
B
Bates also challenges the circuit court’s denial of his public
records requests. We review this ruling for abuse of discretion and
reiterate that circuit courts possess broad discretion in deciding
these matters. See Hutchinson, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S72, 2025 WL
1198037, at *3; Tanzi, 407 So. 3d at 391; Cole, 392 So. 3d at 1065.
The circuit court found Bates’ records requests to be
overbroad and unduly burdensome. In denying relief, the court
also noted that Bates failed to show how his requests related to a
colorable claim for relief or provide good cause for waiting to request
the records until after the death warrant was signed.
This rationale is supported by our warrant-related precedent
and was reasonable based on the facts and circumstances of this
- 17 - case. See Gudinas, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S127-28, 2025 WL
1692284, at *9-10 (affirming denial because demands would not
reasonably lead to a “colorable claim for relief” and “were overly
broad and unduly burdensome”); Tanzi, 407 So. 3d at 391;
Zakrzewski, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S221, 2025 WL 2047404, at *6-7;
Hutchinson, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at S72, 2025 WL 1198037, at *3.
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial.
III
Bates also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his
petition, he raises nine additional claims. We reject them all.
Bates devotes much of his habeas petition to issues related to
his guilt-phase proceedings. He claims that he was deprived of a
fair trial and due process by multiple actions of the trial court judge
in not protecting the jury from “external influences.” He claims his
trial counsel was ineffective. He also faults the conduct of the trial
judge and the State in the 1985 resentencing proceeding (which
was subsequently vacated). All of these events, Bates alleges,
resulted in numerous constitutional infirmities.
- 18 - Bates has had more than forty years to raise these claims, in
both direct appeal and postconviction proceedings. We find he is
procedurally barred from collaterally raising them now. See Fla. R.
Crim. P. 3.851(e); Gaskin v. State, 361 So. 3d 300, 309 (Fla.)
(“Habeas corpus is not to be used to litigate or relitigate issues
which could have been, should have been, or were previously
raised.” (citing Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla.
1992))), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1102 (2023); Moore v. State, 820 So.
2d 199, 209 n.12 (Fla. 2002) (habeas claim “could have been raised
on direct appeal or in a 3.850 motion and, therefore, it is
procedurally barred”); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 578, 579 (Fla.
1990) (“Habeas corpus is not to be used for additional appeals of
issues that could have been, should have been, or were raised on
appeal or in other postconviction motions.”).
Bates also attempts to relitigate his request to interview a
juror who, alleges Bates, was distantly related to Renee. Bates
previously raised this claim and we rejected it less than one year
ago. See Bates X, 398 So. 3d at 407-08. Thus, this claim is
procedurally barred. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)-(e); Mills, 559 So. 2d
- 19 - at 579; Schoenwetter v. State, 46 So. 3d 535, 562 (Fla. 2010)
(“Because [this] argument . . . was raised in his motion filed
pursuant to rule 3.851, this claim is rejected as procedurally
barred.”).
C
Bates also reasserts a claim of entitlement to DNA testing—
something we have twice rejected on the merits. Bates V, 3 So. 3d
at 1098 (concluding that DNA was not a significant part of Bates’
conviction considering the weight of evidence against him); Bates
VIII, 218 So. 3d at 427-28. This claim is procedurally barred and
thus does not support relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(e); Mills,
559 So. 2d at 579; Schoenwetter, 46 So. 3d at 562.
D
Bates next argues that, in his second penalty phase, potential
jurors were improperly excused while Bates was absent from the
courtroom. We rejected this argument on appeal, finding that the
trial court did not err in excusing the jurors or that, in the
alternative, any error would be harmless. Bates IV, 750 So. 2d at
15. As such, this claim is procedurally barred. See Mills, 559 So.
2d at 579; Schoenwetter, 46 So. 3d at 562.
- 20 - E
Bates also challenges the HAC aggravator, arguing that it fails
to perform its constitutionally required narrowing function. This
claim is procedurally barred as it could have been raised on direct
appeal. Mills, 559 So. 2d at 579; Moore, 820 So. 2d at 209.
Moreover, we have rejected similar challenges. Dillbeck, 357 So. 3d
at 105; Cruz v. State, 320 So. 3d 695, 730-31 (Fla. 2021). Bates
has given us no reason to revisit our precedent in this regard.
F
In his final claim, Bates argues that this Court should grant
relief based upon the alleged cumulative errors that have occurred
in his proceedings. However, since Bates has not convinced us of
any error, there is nothing to review on a cumulative basis. Thus,
like his other claims, this one does not support relief.
IV
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the circuit court’s
summary denial of Bates’ fourth successive postconviction motion
and the denial of his requests for public records. We also deny
habeas relief. And, in light of these rulings, we deny Bates’ motion
- 21 - for a stay and for oral argument. No motion for rehearing will be
considered. The mandate shall issue immediately.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Bay County, Dustin Stephenson, Judge Case No. 031982CF000661XXAXMX And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Suzanne Keffer, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, James L. Driscoll, Jr., Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Michael T. Cookson, Staff Attorney, and Jeanine Cohen, Staff Attorney, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Appellant/Petitioner
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Janine D. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee/Respondent
- 22 -