Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida & Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida

── Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida & Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida ── Court: Supreme Court of Florida Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2026-0519 ____________ CHADWICK WILLACY, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________ No. SC2026-0526 ____________ CHADWICK WILLACY, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. April 15, 2026 PER CURIAM. Thirty-one years after Chadwick Willacy was sentenced to death for capital murder, Governor DeSantis signed his death warrant on March 13, 2026, with an execution date of April 21, 2026. When the warrant was signed, Willacy already had a pending motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852 1 seeking public records from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) on Florida’s lethal injection protocol. He filed a second motion after the warrant was signed seeking from FDOC, the Executive Office of the Governor (Governor), the Office of the Attorney General (AG), and the State Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (State Attorney) records regarding communications purportedly had among them. The circuit court denied both motions in one order and denied Willacy’s subsequent motion for rehearing/in camera 1. When rule 3.852 was adopted, it was described as a “discovery rule for public records production ancillary to proceedings pursuant to [Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure] 3.850 and 3.851,” i.e., postconviction proceedings. Sims v. State, 753 So. 2d 66, 69 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Amends. to Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc., 754 So. 2d 640, 643 (Fla. 1999)); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.852(a)(1) (“This rule is applicable only to the production of public records for capital postconviction defendants and does not change or alter the time periods specified in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Furthermore, this rule does not affect, expand, or limit the production of public records for any purposes other than use in a proceeding held pursuant to rule 3.850 or rule 3.851.”). -2- review. Importantly, Willacy did not file a rule 3.851 motion. And the time to file such a motion under our order setting an expedited timeline for post-warrant proceedings has already expired. For the reasons explained below, we have jurisdiction 2 but treat Willacy’s appeal of the order denying his public records requests as a petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c) and deny the petition. We dismiss his appeal from the order denying his motion for extension of time to file a successive postconviction motion. We further deny Willacy’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as his request for oral argument. I. Background The facts of this case are especially heinous. Willacy was in the process of burglarizing the home of his neighbor, Marlys Sather, when she came home and caught him in the act. After binding, strangling, and bludgeoning her with a force so intense that it 2. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.142(c); Sims, 753 So. 2d at 67 (reviewing order denying public records under rule 3.852 on plenary appeal where capital defendant’s warrant had been signed and successive postconviction motion was still pending). -3- dislodged a portion of her skull, Willacy doused her with gasoline and set her on fire, training a fan on the fire to feed the flames. Ms. Sather ultimately died from smoke inhalation. And Willacy was convicted of first-degree murder, arson, robbery, and burglary. We affirmed Willacy’s convictions on direct appea