Death sentences in three long-running Orange County murder cases were thrown out Friday. The defendants will instead serve a life sentence in prison, unless State Attorney Aramis Ayala agrees to re-try the punishment portions of their cases and purse the death penalty a second time.
The three defendants had asked to have their death sentences thrown out based on having been sentenced by a non-unanimous jury, in violation of a recent and partially retroactive ruling from the state Supreme Court known as the Hurst ruling.
Derrick McLean was 27 years old at the time of his 2004 crime. He was convicted of killing 15-year-old Jahvon Thompson during a home burglary, originally meant to net either cash or marijuana for McLean, a cousin of his, and an acquaintance. A jury voted 9-3 to sentence him to death.
David Frances was 20 years old when he killed Helena Mills, a family friend who he was said to have known for some time, and JoAnna Charles, a visitor in Mills’ home. The murders were committed in conjunction with a car burglary and jewelry theft, potentially motivated by a demand that Frances move out of the home in which he’d been living. The jury voted 9-3 for death as it related to Mills’ murder and 10-2 for death as it related to Charles’ murder.
Sean Smith, also known as Dolan Darling, was 20 years old when he raped and murdered an Orange County woman after breaking into her home. During the penalty phase of Smith’s trial, a taxi driver from the area testified Smith was the same man who shot him while he was working one night. The jury ultimately sentenced Smith to death in an 11-1 vote.
The defendants have had their cases remanded to local courts for the purposes of determining whether they fall under the retroactive protections of the Hurst case. In court Friday, the attorney general’s office opposed the defendants’ motions for post-conviction relief, arguing that none of the three are entitled to new punishment hearings.
In McLean's case, Orange and Osceola County State Attorney Aramis Ayala's office has also signed on in opposition to a new punishment hearing or the discarding of McLean's original death sentence.
The prevailing theory from the state was that each of the crimes was awful enough to have convinced a jury to vote unanimously for death should such a vote have been required at the time. Modern trials involving the death penalty would include written instructions for jurors requiring that a death sentence be unanimously voted upon.
However, Ayala’s recent affirmation of her unwillingness to seek the death penalty while in office raises questions for old cases that find themselves newly in-flux. Should a judge rule that the Hurst ruling applies, any or all of these cases and eight others could end up having the defendants’ punishment retried in front of a new jury if Ayala and her associates are willing to fight for the death penalty for a second time.
Ayala’s unwillingness to fight for the death penalty against any defendant who wins relief from his original death sentence would likely result in his temporary life without parole sentence becoming permanent.
For two weeks, Ayala’s and her spokesperson have confined their remarks on the future of cases like these to saying cases would be examined individually, and that any outcome was dependent upon an unspecified mandate from the state supreme court.
Ayala’s office has been unable to specify what form that mandate might take, what might prompt it or when it might come.
By contrast, WFTV Legal Analyst and former Chief Judge Belvin Perry told Eyewitness News no such mandate was in the pipeline. Additionally, the judges in Friday’s hearings appeared to expect an immediate answer as to what Ayala’s office intended to do with each case. They cited confusion surrounding Ayala’s original announcement as a reason for requesting an unambiguous answer.
Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Nunnelly offered no excuses regarding a pending mandate. Instead he promised a decision soon.
Cox Media Group
