Roper claim in Florida

2026Zack v. State, 371 So. 3d 335 , 347 (Fla. 2023) (citing Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 795); see also Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 986 (Fla. 2018) (holding that an extension-of-Roper claim was procedurally barred in an active warrant case because it could have been raised previously); Simmons v. State, 105 So. 3d 475, 511 (Fla. 2012) (rejecting as procedurally barred a claim, based on Roper and Atkins, that the defendant was exempt from execution based on mental illness and neuropsychological deficits because it could have been raised in prior proceedings). 4.

2025E.g., Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 795 (concluding that extension-of-Atkins claim was procedurally barred in an active warrant case because it could have been raised previously); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 986 (Fla. 2018) (holding that an extension- of-Roper claim was procedurally barred in an active warrant case because it could have been raised previously); Simmons v. State, 105 So. 3d 475, 511 (Fla. 2012) (rejecting as procedurally barred a claim, based on Roper and Atkins, that the defendant was exempt from execution based on mental illness and neuropsychological deficits because it could

2026Zack v. State, 371 So. 3d 335 , 347 (Fla. 2023) (citing Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 795); see also Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 986 (Fla. 2018) (holding that an extension-of-Roper claim was procedurally barred in an active warrant case because it could have been raised previously); Simmons v. State, 105 So. 3d 475, 511 (Fla. 2012) (rejecting as procedurally barred a claim, based on Roper and Atkins, that the defendant was exempt from execution based on mental illness and neuropsychological deficits because it could have been raised in prior proceedings). 4.

2025E.g., Barwick, 361 So. 3d at 795 (concluding that extension-of-Atkins claim was procedurally barred in an active warrant case because it could have been raised previously); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 986 (Fla. 2018) (holding that an extension- of-Roper claim was procedurally barred in an active warrant case because it could have been raised previously); Simmons v. State, 105 So. 3d 475, 511 (Fla. 2012) (rejecting as procedurally barred a claim, based on Roper and Atkins, that the defendant was exempt from execution based on mental illness and neuropsychological deficits because it could

2023See, e.g., Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim - 17 - relying on scientific research and a 2018 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution recommending individuals under twenty-two be exempt from execution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 984-87 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim that relied on new scientific research, scientific consensus, international consensus, and the 2018 ABA resolution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered ev

2023See, e.g., Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim - 17 - relying on scientific research and a 2018 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution recommending individuals under twenty-two be exempt from execution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 984-87 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim that relied on new scientific research, scientific consensus, international consensus, and the 2018 ABA resolution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered ev

2023See, e.g., Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim - 17 - relying on scientific research and a 2018 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution recommending individuals under twenty-two be exempt from execution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 984-87 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim that relied on new scientific research, scientific consensus, international consensus, and the 2018 ABA resolution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered ev

2023See, e.g., Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim - 17 - relying on scientific research and a 2018 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution recommending individuals under twenty-two be exempt from execution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 984-87 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim that relied on new scientific research, scientific consensus, international consensus, and the 2018 ABA resolution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered ev

2023See, e.g., Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim - 17 - relying on scientific research and a 2018 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution recommending individuals under twenty-two be exempt from execution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 984-87 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim that relied on new scientific research, scientific consensus, international consensus, and the 2018 ABA resolution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered ev

2023See, e.g., Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim - 17 - relying on scientific research and a 2018 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution recommending individuals under twenty-two be exempt from execution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence); Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981, 984-87 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting as untimely an extension-of-Roper claim that relied on new scientific research, scientific consensus, international consensus, and the 2018 ABA resolution, because they do not qualify as newly discovered ev

2026See Kearse, 969 So. 2d at 991 -92 - 21 - (rejecting Kearse’s Atkins claim because he presented evidence at his penalty phase that he was not intellectually disabled and no evidence to the contrary at his initial postconviction evidentiary hearing, and rejecting his Roper claim because he was over the age of eighteen at the time of the murder).

2008See Kearse v. State, 969 So.2d 976, 992 (Fla. 2007) (denying Roper claim where defendant was eighteen years and three months old at the time of the crime and had mental and emotional impairments); see also Stephens v. State, 975 So.2d 405, 427 (Fla.2007); Hill v. State, 921 So.2d 579, 584 (Fla.2006).

2025E.g., Barwick v. State, 88 So. 3d 85, 106 (Fla. 2011) (rejecting claim that Roper should extend to Barwick, who was nineteen when he committed the crimes, because his mental age was less than eighteen); Stephens v. State, 975 So. 2d 405, 427 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting claim that Roper and the Eighth Amendment barred execution of defendant who had a mental and emotional age of less than eighteen years because his chronological age at the time of his crimes was twenty-three); Hill v. State, 921 So. 2d 579, 584 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting an extension-of-Roper claim and holding “Roper only prohibits the e

2008See Kearse v. State, 969 So.2d 976, 992 (Fla. 2007) (denying Roper claim where defendant was eighteen years and three months old at the time of the crime and had mental and emotional impairments); see also Stephens v. State, 975 So.2d 405, 427 (Fla.2007); Hill v. State, 921 So.2d 579, 584 (Fla.2006).

2025E.g., Barwick v. State, 88 So. 3d 85, 106 (Fla. 2011) (rejecting claim that Roper should extend to Barwick, who was nineteen when he committed the crimes, because his mental age was less than eighteen); Stephens v. State, 975 So. 2d 405, 427 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting claim that Roper and the Eighth Amendment barred execution of defendant who had a mental and emotional age of less than eighteen years because his chronological age at the time of his crimes was twenty-three); Hill v. State, 921 So. 2d 579, 584 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting an extension-of-Roper claim and holding “Roper only prohibits the e

2008See Kearse v. State, 969 So.2d 976, 992 (Fla. 2007) (denying Roper claim where defendant was eighteen years and three months old at the time of the crime and had mental and emotional impairments); see also Stephens v. State, 975 So.2d 405, 427 (Fla.2007); Hill v. State, 921 So.2d 579, 584 (Fla.2006).

2025E.g., Barwick v. State, 88 So. 3d 85, 106 (Fla. 2011) (rejecting claim that Roper should extend to Barwick, who was nineteen when he committed the crimes, because his mental age was less than eighteen); Stephens v. State, 975 So. 2d 405, 427 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting claim that Roper and the Eighth Amendment barred execution of defendant who had a mental and emotional age of less than eighteen years because his chronological age at the time of his crimes was twenty-three); Hill v. State, 921 So. 2d 579, 584 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting an extension-of-Roper claim and holding “Roper only prohibits the e