DC #053779
DOB: 02/19/52

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case #76-3350
Judge, 1^st Sentencing: The Honorable N. Joseph Duran, Jr.
Judge, 2^nd Sentencing: The Honorable John A. Tanksley   
Resentencing Judge: The Honorable S. Peter Capua
Attorney, 1^st Sentencing: Arthur Rothenberg - Assistant Public Defender
Attorney, 2^nd Sentencing: Harry Solomon, Esq.
Attorneys, Resentencing: Joy Carr, Esq., Raymond Badini, Esq. & John Lapinsky, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal I: Louis M. Jepeway, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal II: Harry Solomon, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal, Resentencing: Geoffrey C. Fleck, Esq. 
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Terri Backhus and Stacie Brown – CCRC-S 

Date of Offense: 03/30/76

Date of Sentencing I: 06/24/76

Date of Sentencing II: 09/20/78  

Date of Resentencing: 08/25/89

Circumstances of Offense: 

William Thompson was convicted and sentenced to death for the 03/30/76 kidnapping, rape and murder of Sally Ivester.

William Thompson, Rocco Surace, Barbara Savage and Sally Ivester were staying together in a motel room in Dade County. 

Thompson and Surace instructed the two women to call their families in order to obtain money.  Both Thompson and Surace became enraged when Sally could only get $25 from her family, when she had previously claimed that she could get close to $200. 

At that time, Surace ordered Sally into the bedroom where he began to strike her in the face with his chain-link belt.  Surace ordered Sally to take off her clothes, while Thompson systematically beat her with the chain-link belt. 

The two men then sodomized her with the leg of a chair and also with a nightstick.  The violent ramming tore the inner lining of the vaginal wall, causing internal bleeding. 

Thompson and Surace burned Sally with cigarettes and lighters, forced her to eat a sanitary napkin, and lick beer off the floor. 

The two men then took Sally to a phone booth and ordered her to call her mother to ask for more money.  After the phone call, Thompson and Surace took Sally back to the motel room where the brutal beating continued.  Sally died from the injuries sustained in the assault.

Barbara Savage, who was a witness to the murder of Sally Ivester, testified that she feared for her life if she tried to leave the motel during the malicious attack. 

*****

Codefendant Information:

Rocco Surace pled guilty to the kidnapping, rape and murder of Sally Ivester.  The trial court sentenced him to death; however, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the sentence on appeal. 

At Surace’s retrial, Thompson testified, claiming responsibility for the entire incident and Surace was found guilty of Second Degree Murder.  He was sentenced to life and died on 11/14/93 while in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections.

*****

Trial Summary:

04/01/76          Defendant arrested.

04/14/76          Defendant indicted on:

Count I:           First-Degree Murder
Count II:          Kidnapping
Count III:         Sexual Battery

05/07/76          Defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of “not guilty” to all counts charged in the indictment.

06/15/76          Defendant changed his plea to “guilty” on all counts charged in the indictment.

06/15/76          Judgment rendered by the trial court.

06/17/76          Upon advisory sentencing, the jury voted by a majority for the death penalty.

06/24/76          The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I:           First-Degree Murder - Death
Count II:          Kidnapping - Life
Count III:         Sexual Battery – Life

06/23/77          Upon Direct Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgments and sentence of death and remanded to the trial court with instructions to allow Thompson to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.

09/18/78          The defendant again pled guilty to all counts charged in the indictment. 

09/18/78          Judgment rendered by the trial court.

09/20/78          Upon advisory sentencing, the jury voted by a majority for the death penalty.

09/20/78          The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First Degree Murder - Death

Count II: Kidnapping - Life

Count III: Sexual Battery – Life

09/09/87         In a consolidated opinion, FSC remanded Thompson’s case for resentencing under the dictates of Hitchcock v. Dugger.

*****

Resentencing Summary:

04/17/89          A new penalty phase commenced before a new jury.

06/06/89          Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 7 to 5 majority, voted for the death penalty.

08/25/89          Thompson was resentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder – Death

Count II: Kidnapping – Life

Count III: Sexual Battery – Life

*****

Case Information:

On 07/30/96, Thompson filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  At the same time, he filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850) in the State Circuit Court.  Thompson’s 3.850 Motion was denied, after which he filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 10/29/76. 

The Florida Supreme Court then consolidated Thompson’s Direct Appeal and his 3.850 Appeal.  In those appeals, Thompson argued that his motivation for pleading guilty was based on “a failure of communication or a misunderstanding of the facts.” 

On 06/23/77, in a consolidated opinion, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Thompson’s convictions and sentences, and remanded with instructions to allow Thompson to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.

On 02/27/78, Thompson filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 04/24/78. 

Upon returning to the State Circuit Court, Thompson again entered a plea of guilty on all counts charged in the indictment and Thompson was again sentenced to death.  On 12/11/78, Thompson filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  In that appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his request for additional psychiatric testing and in denying his request for a presentence investigation. 

Thompson also contended that the trial court erred by convening an advisory jury over his objection and then excluding jurors who opposed the death penalty.  Thompson’s last contention was that the trial court ignored evidence of domination by Rocco Surace, Thompson’s accomplice.  The Florida Supreme Court found no merit to Thompson’s claims and affirmed the convictions and sentence of death on 07/03/80.

Thompson then filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court.  That motion was denied and Thompson filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  In that appeal, Thompson claimed that Rocco Surace “forced him to take full blame for the murder” and that his testifying at Surace’s trial as being the dominant participant in the murder of Sally Ivester was the product of coercion.  As such, Thompson claimed that his death sentence was inappropriate because Surace, who he claimed was the “moving force” in the murder, was given a life sentence.  On 02/11/82, The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Thompson’s 3.850 Motion. 

Thompson next filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court, Southern District.  He concurrently filed a motion for a continuance, asserting that there were two claims not included in the petition.  Thompson argued the inclusion of his claims that he involuntarily and unintelligibly entered a guilty plea and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Thompson’s attorney argued that these claims could not have been raised earlier because trial counsel had represented Thompson in all previous post conviction proceedings. 

The State opposed the Motion for Continuance as a “deliberate bypass” and an “abuse of writ.”  At this point, the attorney general notified the court that the State waived exhaustion of the two unexhausted claims; however, the District Court rejected that waiver.  The United States District Court then granted Thompson’s Motion for Continuance to allow Thompson to exhaust the two claims at the state level. 

On 02/22/82, Thompson filed an additional 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court.  The State then filed an interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing the granting of the continuance and that the District Court erred “in not giving effect to the State’s waiver of exhaustion.”  There was an order entered putting a stay on all proceedings at the state level pending the disposition of the Interlocutory Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals. 

The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision to grant Thompson’s Motion for Continuance; however, the cause was remanded to the United States District Court to allow the court to consider accepting or rejecting the State’s waiver of Thompson’s two unexhausted claims as directed in the guidelines set forth by the Court of Appeals. 

On remand, the District Court accepted the State’s waiver and, after an evidentiary hearing, denied Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.  Thompson then filed an appeal of that denial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  In that appeal, Thompson argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court limited the consideration of non-statutory evidence heard during the sentencing phase.  Thompson also claimed that the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry into his competency to stand trial and that his guilty plea was coerced through death threats from his codefendant Rocco Surace.  On 04/10/86, the United States Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court and affirmed the denial of Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Thompson next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 05/04/87.

Thompson then returned to the State level and filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court.  That motion was denied, after which Thompson filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  Thompson concurrently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court.  On 09/09/87, the Florida Supreme Court, in a consolidated opinion, remanded Thompson’s case for resentencing under the dictates of Hitchcock v. Dugger.  The high court deemed Thompson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to be moot in light of the remand granted by Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal 

The State then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was denied on 03/21/88.

On 08/25/89, William Thompson was resentenced to death.  He then filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  In that appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by admitting the prior testimony of witness Barbara Savage when she could not be located to testify at the resentencing.  Thompson also argued that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to strike the jury panel when the jury apparently became concerned that Thompson, having served 13 years in prison already, could be released after just 12 years if given a life sentence.  Thompson also claimed that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce Thompson’s prior inconsistent testimony given at the trial of his codefendant Rocco Surace.  Lastly, Thompson contended that the trial court erred by permitting autopsy photos as evidence and in its consideration and application of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with Thompson that the admission of the autopsy photos was an error, but deemed it harmless considering the testimony of Barbara Savage, the medical examiner, and other crime scene photos that were admitted into evidence.  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Thompson’s sentence of death on 06/04/92. 

On 04/01/93, the court denied Thompson’s Motion for Rehearing and issued a clarified opinion addressing the issue of the jury instruction given for the heinous, atrocious, and cruel (HAC) aggravating factor as dictated by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Espinosa v. Florida.  Thompson argued that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the HAC instruction given to his jury was defective. 

The Florida Supreme Court noted that, given the circumstances of this torturous murder, the application of the HAC aggravating factor was justified under any definition and beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Florida Supreme Court again affirmed the sentence of death on 04/01/93. 

Thompson then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on11/08/93.

Thompson next filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court.  That motion was denied, after which he filed an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  Thompson concurrently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court.  In a consolidated opinion, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Thompson’s 3.850 Appeal and denied his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 04/13/00.

On 06/13/01, Thompson filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court, which was dismissed on 12/14/01.  That court then granted, in part, a motion for certificate of appealability.  On 02/04/02, Thompson filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals in which the denial of his Habeas was affirmed on 02/06/03.

Thompson filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court on 06/18/03.  The motion was denied on 11/12/03.

Thompson filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on 08/01/03.  The petition was granted on 04/04/05.  The United States Supreme Court vacated Thompson’s judgment and remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit.

On 08/09/04, Thompson filed a 3.850 Motion in the circuit court.  The motion was denied on 12/17/04.

On 02/15/05, Thompson filed a 3.850 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  The appeal is currently pending.

FloridaCapitalCases.state.fl.us

William L. Thompson