Paul Christopher Hildwin

Case information

• Name: Paul Christopher Hildwin
• Date of birth: 03/22/60
• Jurisdiction: Fifth Judicial Circuit, Hernando County
• Case number: 85-499
• DC number: 923196

Background

At the time of the offense, Hildwin was on parole for rape and attempted sodomy convictions in New York state in 1979.

The offence

Hildwin raped and murdered a woman by strangling her in Hernando County.

On the night of September 8, 1985, Hildwin and two women went to a drive-in movie, where they spent all their money. Returning home early the next morning, their car ran out of fuel. They collected some soda bottles that were lying on the roadside, redeemed them for cash and bought some gasoline. However, they were still not able to start the car.

After spending the night in the car, Hildwin at nine a.m. began walking toward a convenience store near a coin laundry. He had no money left, but when he returned approximately an hour and a half later he had money and a radio.

Later that day, Hildwin forged a check written to him on the account of Vronzettie Cox, the victim. The check led police to Hildwin.

A search of Hildwin’s home turned up a radio and a ring, both of which belonged to the victim.

The victim had been missing for four days when her body was found in the trunk of her car. The victim’s car was hidden in dense woods in Hernando County.

The man she lived with said she left home to wash clothes at a coin laundry near a convenience store.

Investigation

The forged check written to him on the account of Vronzettie Cox led police to Hildwin. A search of Hildwin’s home turned up a radio and a ring, both belonging to the victim.

Trial

• Date of indictment: 11/22/85
• Charges:
  • Count I: First-Degree Murder
• Date shown alongside indictment: 09/04/86
• Date of verdict: 09/17/86
• Verdict:
  • Defendant was found guilty of First-Degree Murder
• Jury recommendation:
  • Death by a vote of 12 to 0

Sentencing

• Date of sentence: 09/17/86
• Sentencing judge: The Honorable L.R. Huffstetler Jr.
• Sentence imposed:
  • Count I: First-Degree Murder — Death

Resentencing

• Date of resentencing: 12/04/96
• Jury recommendation:
  • Death by a vote of 8-4
• Resentencing outcome:
  • Defendant was resentenced as follows: Count I: First-Degree Murder — Death

Appeals

Hildwin filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) on 10/17/86. The FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence on 09/01/88.

A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed on 12/07/88 with the United States Supreme Court (USSC) and was denied on 05/30/89.

Governor Martinez signed a death warrant on 05/17/90, but the FSC filed a stay of execution on 06/21/90.

A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed with the FSC on 06/12/90 and was denied on 01/19/95.

A 3.850 Motion was filed with the circuit court on 10/24/90 and was denied on 06/23/93. A 3.850 Appeal was filed with the FSC on 09/08/93.

The FSC vacated the sentence of death on 01/19/95 based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded the case for new sentencing.

A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the USSC on 08/11/95 and was denied on 11/06/95.

A second Direct Appeal was filed with the FSC on 01/08/97. The FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence on 09/10/98.

A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the USSC on 06/02/99 and was denied on 10/04/99.

A second 3.851 motion was filed with the circuit court on 01/07/00 and amended on 08/06/03. On 05/03/04, the Circuit Court denied the 3.851 Motion. A 3.851 Motion Appeal was filed with the Florida Supreme Court on 06/28/04 and is pending.

People involved

• Trial counsel: Daniel M. Lewan — Assistant Public Defender
• Direct appeal counsel: Larry Henderson — Assistant Public Defender
• Collateral appeals: Mark Gruber & David Hendry — CCRC-M

Timeline

• 09/08/85 — Hildwin and two women went to a drive-in movie and spent all their money
• 09/09/85 — Date of Offense
• 09/04/86 — Date shown with the charge entry: Count I: First-Degree Murder
• 11/22/85 — Defendant indicted (Count I: First-Degree Murder)
• 09/17/86 — Defendant was found guilty of First-Degree Murder; jury recommended death by a vote of 12 to 0; sentenced to death
• 10/17/86 — Hildwin filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court
• 09/01/88 — Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence
• 12/07/88 — Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court
• 05/30/89 — United States Supreme Court denied certiorari
• 05/17/90 — Governor Martinez signed a death warrant
• 06/21/90 — Florida Supreme Court filed a stay of execution
• 06/12/90 — Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed with the Florida Supreme Court
• 01/19/95 — Habeas corpus denied by the Florida Supreme Court; sentence of death vacated and remanded based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
• 10/24/90 — 3.850 Motion filed with the circuit court
• 06/23/93 — 3.850 Motion denied by the circuit court
• 09/08/93 — 3.850 Appeal filed with the Florida Supreme Court
• 08/11/95 — Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court
• 11/06/95 — United States Supreme Court denied certiorari
• 01/08/97 — Second Direct Appeal filed with the Florida Supreme Court
• 09/10/98 — Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence
• 06/02/99 — Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court
• 10/04/99 — United States Supreme Court denied certiorari
• 01/07/00 — Second 3.851 motion filed with the circuit court
• 08/06/03 — Second 3.851 motion amended
• 05/03/04 — Circuit Court denied the 3.851 Motion
• 06/28/04 — 3.851 Motion Appeal filed with the Florida Supreme Court (pending)
• 12/04/96 — Defendant was resentenced as follows: Count I: First-Degree Murder — Death

Outcome

Hildwin remained sentenced to death, with the death sentence imposed on 09/17/86 and again imposed after resentencing on 12/04/96. The 3.851 Motion Appeal filed with the Florida Supreme Court on 06/28/04 was pending.

Other details

• Florida Supreme Court opinion references included: 69513 opinion 76145 opinion 89658 opinion 04-1264
• United States Supreme Court case reference included: Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638 (1989); Hildwin v. Florida No. 88-6066; decided May 30, 1989; CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
• A syllabus section stated: "The Sixth Amendment does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the death sentence be made by a jury." It also stated: "The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is Affirmed."
• A dissent by JUSTICE BRENNAN stated:

  Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 , 428 U. S. 227 (1976) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), I would vacate the death sentence in this case.

• A dissent by JUSTICE MARSHALL stated:

  Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 , 428 U. S. 231 (1976), (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not hold this view, I would dissent from the Court's decision today to affirm summarily the decision below. I continue to believe that summary dispositions deprive litigants of a fair opportunity to be heard on the merits and create a significant risk that the Court is rendering an erroneous or ill-advised decision that may confuse the lower courts. See Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U. S. 9 , 488 U. S. 11 (1988) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U. S. 1 , 488 U. S. 4 (1988) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U. S. 265 , 485 U. S. 269 (1988) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U. S. 3 , 484 U. S. 7 (1987) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). This risk of error is particularly unacceptable in capital cases, where a man's life is at stake. I dissent.

• In the United States Supreme Court materials, the petitioner's role and procedural discussion included:

  • Petitioner did not present this issue to the trial court, but raised it for the first time in the Florida Supreme Court. Respondent therefore argues that the decision below rests on an adequate and independent state ground. The Florida Supreme Court, however, did not rest its decision on this procedural argument, finding instead that there was "no merit" to petitioner's claim. 531 So.2d at 129. In these circumstances, we have jurisdiction to reach the merits. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 , 472 U. S. 327 (1985).