Click on each case link to read entire opinion
October 5, 2017 - SCOTUS denies Michael Lambrix
October 5, 2017 -11th Circuit denies all relief
October 4, 2017 - United States District Court Permission to appeal to the 11th circuit.
September 29, 2017 - Florida Supreme Court denies appeal to rehear case on Hurst Retroactivity
September 26, 2017 - Florida Supreme Court - petition for a writ of Habeas corpus is denied
September 9, 2017 - State's Supplemental Response to petition for writ of Habeas Corpus
September 6, 2017 - Response to motion to vacate scheduling order and Florida Supreme Court's amended scheduling order
September 1, 2017 - Michael Lambrix's death warrant rescheduled (for October 5, 2017)
April 12, 2017 - 11th Circuit order denying motion for rehearing.
March 15, 2017 - The Federal Appeals Court denied Mike Lambrix's appeal - "Court Petitioner, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death, filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA), seeking to appeal the denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court denied petitioner's three motions for a COA where reasonable jurists could not debate whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) motion. In this case, petitioner has litigated and re-litigated variations on the same claims for decades".
March 9, 2017 - Florida Supreme Court lifts stay of execution
March 9, 2017 - Florida Supreme Court denies the following motions:
That Mr Lambrix was deprived of effective assistance of council, that he was denied his due process rights and a full hearing on DNA motion, that he was denied full and fair post conviction proceedings, and that the totality of punishment that the State has imposed on him is unconstitutional.
February 2, 2016 - Motion for stay of execution granted!
January 15, 2016 - Florida Supreme Court denies stay of execution
January 15, 2016 - Florida Supreme Court orders Oral Arguments for February 2, 2016
December 21, 2015 - The Circuit Judge in Hendry County denied the following motions:
Order denying Defendant's Motion for Stay
Order denying Defendant's Second 3.853 Motion
Order denying Defendant's successive 3.851 Motion
11th Circuit appeal No. 14-15617
January 14, 2015 - Application for leave to file second or successive habeas corpus petition denied
Lambrix v. State of Florida SC10-1845 (Fla. 2013)
June 27, 2013 - Florida Supreme Court ruling denies Lambrix's new evidence/innocence appeal
Lambrix v. State, 2010 WL 1488028 (Fla. 2010)
April 15th, 2010 - Florida Court Denies Lambrix's Innocence Appeal - Lambrix v. State, 2010 WL 1488028 (Fla. 2010) After denying review and final disposition of Michael Lambrix’s state post conviction appeal arguing newly discovered evidence that substantiates Lambrix’s consistently pled claim of innocence for many years, in a bizarre and even absurd ruling the Florida Supreme Court has categorically denied all relief, finding that the virtual wealth of evidence presented by Lambrix is not credible.
520 U.S. 518 (1997)
Lambrix asserts several reasons why procedural bar does not apply, the validity *519 of which is more appropriately determined by the lower federal courts, which are more familiar with the procedural practices of the States in which they sit. Rather than prolong this litigation by a remand, the Court proceeds to decide the question presented. Pp. 1522-1524.
698 So.2d 247 (Fla. 1996)
In any event, in a previous pro se petition, Lambrix raised a claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel which was denied. Lambrix, 559 So.2d at 1138. Successive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on different grounds are not permitted. Aldridge v. State, 503 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1987).
Lambrix’s claims are procedurally barred. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion for postconviction relief.
72 F. 3d 1500 (11th Cir. 1996)
The Court of Appeals, Anderson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) claim that jury was not given sufficient guidance in evaluating two aggravating factors was barred under Teague ; (2) counsel’s failure to present, during penalty phase, mitigating evidence on petitioner’s chemical dependence or on abuse suffered by petitioner as child was not ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) appellate counsel’s failure to present sentencing issues was not ineffective assistance; (4) second trial conducted after first trial ended in mistrial was not barred by double jeopardy; and (5) petitioner was not denied fundamental right to testify.
529 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1988)
Evidence was not sufficient to show intoxication. Because we cannot say that the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury as to voluntary intoxication, appellate counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise the issue.
Petitioner’s other arguments either have no merit or have been raised before. There being no basis for relief, we deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
494 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1986)
After a careful review of the record, we agree with the trial judge and all of the parties involved that five aggravating circumstances apply to the murder of Moore and four aggravating circumstances apply to the murder of Bryant. The circumstance that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain only applied to the murder of Moore because, following the murder, Lambrix stole Moore’s automobile.
Accordingly, we affirm both of Lambrix’ convictions and sentences.