By Perla Chavez
TALLAHASSEE, FL – In the Allen Ward Cox v. State of Florida capital resentencing case last week, Justice of the Florida Supreme Court Meredith Sasso explains the affirmation of Cox’s death sentence following the initial unconstitutional non-unanimous death sentence.
As detailed by Judge Sasso, Allen Ward Cox was involved in a high-profile capital resentencing case in Florida. Cox was originally sentenced to death for the 1998 premeditated murder of Thomas Baker, a fellow inmate at Lake Correctional Institute. His case has gone through many appeals and legal proceedings, the opinion states.
Judge Sasso stated, “The charges against Cox resulted from a chain of events within LCI that culminated in the death of Baker and an assault upon Lawrence Wood.” According to the evidence presented at Cox’s guilt phase trial, Cox was stolen from and promised to retaliate. The next day, Cox allegedly beat Baker before stabbing him with a shiv and hiding the weapon.
The opinion reports Cox testified witness statements were correct, however, “…they had not seen what truly happened when he, Baker, and Vincent Maynard, a third inmate, were close together.” Cox asserted he was defending himself from the two, when Maynard unintentionally struck Baker.
Judge Sasso’s opinion confirms that in 2002, the Florida Supreme Court upheld Cox’s conviction and death sentence. However, a new penalty phase was granted because Cox challenged this sentence with a motion for post-conviction relief. The jury reached a unanimous decision to execute Cox.
The court affirmed this decision in 2022, which prompted a direct appeal in 2024. Cox raised seven issues regarding the proceedings of his resentencing. The court categorized and rejected these issues in the statement provided.
Judge Sasso’s opinion ultimately evaluated mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Two aggravators were mentioned by the jury: imprisonment and prior violent felony, with 57 non statutory mitigating factors were recognized, yet “…were outweighed by the two significant aggravating circumstances.”
The opinion indicates that in regard to the issue of dementia, since a doctor did not explicitly state what type of dementia Cox suffers from, the court concluded no error was made in rejecting the circumstance.
Judge Sasso writes that “because the testimony did not conclusively establish progressive dementia, the trial court therefore rejected the non-statutory mitigator of ‘early signs of dementia,’ which implies progressive dementia.”
Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court believes factors affecting behavior such as impulse control deficits and antidepressant withdrawal do not bear enough weight against their evidence for the case, Judge Sasso asserts.
Court cases were cited as proof that mitigating circumstances can be established but not considered mitigating due to the accused’s purposeful actions throughout the crime, Judge Sasso highlighted. Expert testimony disproves Cox’s claims of withdrawal and Sinequan discontinuation.
Judge Sasso wrote in the opinion Cox did not establish fundamental error; a mistake committed in court that is serious enough to have an impact on the case outcome. Cox argues the prosecutor’s closing comments influence the process of deliberation and results in fundamental error.
However, Judge Sasso stated that “the defense did not make any contemporaneous objections to the prosecutor’s comments. And in context, the small number of improper remarks made during the trial were not so prejudicial as to call into question the jury’s verdict.”
The ruling opinion said issues brought up by Cox regarding the constitutionality of Florida’s death penalty scheme were rejected because cases cited support the court’s application of established precedent.
Judge Sasso said, “Cox has not presented any reason for this Court to reconsider its precedent on this issue.”
Judge Sasso concluded the opinion by stating fundamental error was not demonstrated and the court affirms the death sentence decision.
