## Facts

- Aramis Donell Ayala was elected state attorney for Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit (Orange and Osceola Counties).
- At a March 15, 2017 press conference, Ayala announced a categorical policy that her office would not seek the death penalty in any death-penalty-eligible case.
- Governor Rick Scott issued executive orders reassigning all death-penalty-eligible cases in the Ninth Circuit to Brad King, state attorney for Florida’s Fifth Judicial Circuit.
- The governor relied on his constitutional duty to ensure faithful execution of the laws and on § 27.14(1), Florida Statutes, which permits assignment of state attorneys to other circuits for “good and sufficient reason” when the “ends of justice” would be best served.
- Ayala filed a petition for writ of quo warranto in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing the orders exceeded the governor’s statutory authority and violated separation of powers by overriding prosecutorial discretion and the electorate’s choice.

## Issues

1. Whether Ayala’s blanket refusal to seek the death penalty constituted “good and sufficient reason” under § 27.14(1), Florida Statutes, for the governor to reassign death-penalty-eligible prosecutions.
2. Whether reassignment of an entire category of cases based on that policy exceeded the governor’s authority or constituted an abuse of discretion under § 27.14(1).
3. Whether the reassignment orders violated separation of powers by intruding on an elected state attorney’s prosecutorial discretion.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of quo warranto.
- The Court held the governor acted within his authority under § 27.14(1) and did not abuse his discretion in reassigning death-penalty-eligible cases.
- The Court concluded the statute’s broad language was not limited to conflict-of-interest situations and permitted reassignment when the governor determined the “ends of justice” would be best served.
- The Court treated Ayala’s announcement as a categorical non-enforcement policy with respect to a sentencing option authorized by Florida law, rather than ordinary case-by-case prosecutorial judgment.
- The Court rejected the separation-of-powers challenge because the state attorney’s office operates subject to Florida law, including § 27.14(1), and the governor’s action fell within the constitutionally and statutorily defined structure.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 27.14(1), Florida Statutes, the governor has broad discretion to assign a state attorney to another circuit for “any . . . good and sufficient reason” when the governor determines the “ends of justice” would be best served.
- Prosecutorial discretion protects individualized, case-specific charging and sentencing decisions, but a blanket policy that categorically removes a legislatively authorized sentencing option may be treated as a refusal to enforce the law for purposes of § 27.14(1).
- A governor’s reassignment under § 27.14(1), grounded in statutory authority and the executive duty to ensure faithful execution of the laws, does not violate separation of powers merely because it affects an elected prosecutor’s handling of cases.
- § 27.14(1) does not require reassignment orders to be limited to single cases; reassignment of a defined class of cases may be permissible when tied to the asserted “good and sufficient reason.”

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court upheld the governor’s authority to reassign death-penalty-eligible prosecutions away from a state attorney who publicly adopted a blanket policy never to seek the death penalty, holding that the statute’s “good and sufficient reason” standard and the governor’s duty to ensure enforcement of state law supported the orders and did not offend separation of powers.


Ayala v. Scott, 224 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2017)