Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr: Case, Appeals, Death Sentence, and Execution
Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr was convicted in Florida of murdering Raymond and Martha Artzner, the parents of his former girlfriend, after shootings at their Pasco County home on June 10, 1986. A jury later found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended death for both counts by a vote of seven to five. The trial judge imposed life imprisonment for Raymond Artzner’s murder but sentenced Occhicone to death for Martha Artzner’s murder.
His case then remained active in state and federal courts for decades. Occhicone pursued a direct appeal, state habeas corpus, Florida postconviction motions, federal habeas relief, a later challenge based on Hurst v. Florida, and new claims after a death warrant was signed in 2026. None of those proceedings ultimately overturned the death sentence.
Florida executed Occhicone on July 28, 2026, after the Florida Supreme Court rejected his final state claims and the U.S. Supreme Court denied both his petition for certiorari and request for a stay. He was 80 years old and had spent about 38 years on death row. Florida’s official execution records now list the case as completed.
What to know
- Occhicone was convicted of two first-degree murders arising from the June 10, 1986 killings of Raymond and Martha Artzner.
- The jury recommended death for both murders by a 7-5 vote.
- The judge imposed life imprisonment for Raymond Artzner’s murder and death for Martha Artzner’s murder.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence in 1990.
- State and federal postconviction challenges were unsuccessful.
- A 2018 attempt to obtain relief under Hurst v. Florida also failed because the Florida Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to his already-final sentence.
- His final 2026 claims focused on lethal-injection procedures, age and health, Florida’s pace of executions, and the old 7-5 jury recommendation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied his final stay application on July 28, 2026.
- Florida executed Occhicone later that day.
What Happened in the Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr. Case?
According to the Florida Supreme Court, Occhicone went to the home of his former girlfriend during the early morning hours of June 10, 1986. She lived there with her children and her parents, Raymond and Martha Artzner, and she refused to speak with him when he first arrived. Occhicone left but returned about an hour later carrying a handgun.
The Florida Supreme Court said Occhicone cut the home’s telephone lines and awakened the household. Raymond Artzner went outside and confronted him, and Occhicone shot him. Occhicone then broke into the house through a locked door and shot Martha Artzner four times after his former girlfriend and her daughter fled.
A jury later convicted Occhicone of two counts of first-degree murder. The case was not based only on what happened at the house because the sentencing court also considered evidence that Occhicone had previously expressed hostility toward his former girlfriend’s parents and had spoken about killing them. The Florida Supreme Court relied on those circumstances when reviewing the finding of heightened premeditation.
What Defense Did Occhicone Use?
At trial, Occhicone relied on a voluntary-intoxication defense. He argued that his intoxication and long history of alcohol use prevented him from forming the level of intent required for premeditated first-degree murder. The jury rejected that defense and found him guilty of both murders.
Intoxication still played a role during sentencing. The trial judge found as statutory mitigation that Occhicone committed the murder while under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. The judge also considered nonstatutory mitigation, including evidence that Occhicone had behaved well in custody and adjusted to incarceration.
Those mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating factors for Martha Artzner’s murder. The judge found a prior violent-felony conviction, commission of the murder during a burglary, and that the killing was cold, calculated, and premeditated. Those findings became part of the basis for the death sentence.
Why Did He Receive Death for One Murder but Life for the Other?
The jury recommended death for both murders by a seven-to-five vote. Under the sentencing system then in effect, the judge was not required to impose identical sentences on both counts. The judge ultimately sentenced Occhicone to life imprisonment for Raymond Artzner’s murder and death for Martha Artzner’s murder.
That difference sometimes causes confusion in short case summaries. Occhicone was not acquitted of Raymond Artzner’s murder, nor was that conviction later overturned. He remained convicted of both first-degree murders, but only one conviction carried a death sentence.
The distinction became relevant again decades later because Occhicone challenged the continued validity of a death sentence that had originally followed a 7-5 jury recommendation. Florida’s death-penalty law later changed, but the Florida Supreme Court concluded in 2026 that the later statutory standard did not invalidate his older, final sentence.
The two convictions and sentences
| Victim | Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Raymond Artzner | First-degree murder | Life imprisonment |
| Martha Artzner | First-degree murder | Death |
What Did the Florida Supreme Court Decide in 1990?
Occhicone directly appealed his convictions and death sentence to the Florida Supreme Court. Among other issues, he challenged prosecutorial statements, evidence relating to his refusal to undergo a hand-swab test, aspects of the aggravating circumstances, and the treatment of mitigating evidence. The court rejected the claims that would have required reversal and affirmed both convictions and the death sentence in Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990).
The court also considered the evidence supporting the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating factor. It pointed to threats made before the killings, Occhicone’s possession of the weapon, the cutting of the telephone line, his return to the home, and the manner in which Martha Artzner was killed. The court concluded that the evidence supported the sentencing finding.
The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to review the direct-appeal decision in 1991. For Florida postconviction purposes, the death sentence then became final. That finality date became important many years later when courts considered whether newer constitutional decisions applied retroactively to him.
What Happened in His State Postconviction Cases?
After direct review ended, Occhicone pursued collateral relief in the Florida courts. The Florida Supreme Court denied a state habeas corpus petition in 1993 and later reviewed the denial of his initial postconviction motion. In 2000, the court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to grant postconviction relief.
Those cases raised issues different from the ordinary trial errors considered on direct appeal. Postconviction litigation can include claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations not fully resolved on direct review, or other grounds allowed under the governing rules. It does not automatically give the defendant a completely new trial.
Occhicone continued pursuing relief after the 2000 decision. His litigation later moved to federal court through a habeas corpus petition and later returned to the Florida courts for successive claims. This is one reason a simple statement that he “appealed for 38 years” does not accurately describe the procedural history.
Postconviction relief is a legal process used after the ordinary trial and direct-appeal stages have ended. It allows certain recognized challenges to a conviction or sentence, but the available claims, deadlines, and proof requirements are limited by court rules and statutes. A postconviction motion is not the same as a new direct appeal or an automatic reopening of every issue from trial.
What Was Occhicone’s Federal Habeas Case About?
Occhicone also filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. One key issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was his claim that prosecutors failed to correct testimony they allegedly knew was false. That type of claim is associated with the constitutional rule from Giglio v. United States.
The Eleventh Circuit considered the claim in Occhicone v. Crosby, 455 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2006). The court concluded that the state-court decision did not justify federal habeas relief and affirmed the district court’s denial of Occhicone’s petition. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined further review.
This federal case should not be confused with the 2026 execution litigation. The federal habeas proceeding concerned alleged constitutional defects connected with the conviction, while the final warrant-stage proceedings focused heavily on execution procedures, age, public records, and later Florida death-penalty developments. They were different legal stages separated by many years.
For readers who want more background on this process, TheLawLearner’s guide on how a writ of habeas corpus safeguards individual freedom explains why habeas corpus differs from an ordinary appeal. It also explains that habeas does not automatically retry guilt or innocence and is subject to separate procedural requirements.
What Was Occhicone’s 2018 Hurst Challenge?
A major later challenge arose after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida in 2016. Hurst held that Florida’s then-existing capital-sentencing process violated the Sixth Amendment because a judge rather than a jury made critical findings needed to impose death. That decision led many Florida death-row prisoners to seek new sentencing proceedings.
Occhicone filed a successive postconviction motion arguing that Hurst should provide relief from his death sentence. His jury had recommended death by only seven votes to five, which made the issue particularly significant because later Florida law placed greater emphasis on jury findings in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court nevertheless rejected his claim in 2018.
The court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Occhicone because his death sentence had already become final in 1991. The Florida Supreme Court therefore affirmed the denial of his successive postconviction motion. That ruling became important again when Occhicone raised the old 7-5 recommendation during his final 2026 litigation.
Why Did the 7-5 Jury Recommendation Matter Again in 2026?
By 2026, Florida law required at least eight jurors to recommend a death sentence. Occhicone argued that carrying out his death sentence after a 7-5 recommendation was unjust because his original jury vote would no longer satisfy the current statutory threshold. The argument focused on the contrast between the system used in his case and the law in force decades later.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected that argument. It said the current statute had been in effect since 2023 and held that the claim was untimely under Florida’s postconviction rules. The court also explained that changes in Florida’s death-penalty law do not automatically make every older final sentence unconstitutional or a manifest injustice.
That conclusion is different from saying a 7-5 recommendation would be enough in a new Florida capital case today. Instead, the court held that the later statutory change did not retroactively invalidate Occhicone’s already-final sentence. That distinction matters because old and new sentencing rules should not be mixed.
Why Did the Case Return to Court in 2026?
Governor Ron DeSantis signed Occhicone’s death warrant on June 26, 2026, scheduling his execution for July 28. That action triggered expedited warrant-stage litigation in the Florida courts. Occhicone then filed a second successive postconviction motion and sought a stay of execution.
His final Florida claims covered several areas. He challenged issues related to Florida’s lethal-injection drug etomidate, sought additional execution-related public records, argued that executing him at age 80 with his health conditions would violate the Eighth Amendment, and challenged the pace of executions in Florida. He also renewed concerns about the 7-5 jury recommendation.
The circuit court rejected the motion without granting relief, and the case returned to the Florida Supreme Court. Because an active execution warrant existed, the proceedings moved much faster than the earlier postconviction litigation. The Florida Supreme Court issued its decision on July 21, one week before the scheduled execution.
What Did the Florida Supreme Court Decide in 2026?
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Occhicone’s second successive postconviction motion and refused to stay the execution. It found his lethal-injection arguments speculative or legally insufficient, rejected his age-based claim, and concluded that his arguments about Florida’s pace of executions did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The court ordered the mandate issued immediately.
Occhicone had sought records about the procurement, storage, testing, preparation, and use of etomidate. His argument was partly connected to reported shortages of the drug and concern that Florida might deviate from its execution procedures. The court concluded that he had not tied the records request to a sufficiently colorable postconviction claim.
His age claim also failed. Occhicone pointed to his age, substance-abuse history, poor hearing and vision, cardiac problems, kidney disease, enlarged prostate, and general physical deterioration. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that the claim was untimely and that age and the asserted health conditions did not create the categorical constitutional exemption he sought.
What Occhicone argued before execution
| Claim | Florida Supreme Court result |
|---|---|
| Etomidate and execution protocol | The court found the asserted constitutional problem speculative or otherwise insufficient for relief. |
| Execution-related public records | The court agreed that the requested records were not tied to a colorable postconviction claim requiring relief. |
| Advanced age and health | The Eighth Amendment claim was rejected as untimely and without merit. |
| Florida’s pace of executions | The court found no recognized constitutional basis for stopping the execution on that theory. |
| 7-5 jury recommendation | The court rejected the argument that later changes to Florida law invalidated his older final sentence. |
What Did Occhicone Ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Do?
After losing in the Florida Supreme Court, Occhicone filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and a separate application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay his execution. The filings were submitted on July 24, 2026, with the execution scheduled for 6 p.m. on July 28. The stay application was initially submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas and later referred to the full Court.
His Supreme Court filings focused principally on his access to postconviction public records and whether his age and health could support an as-applied constitutional exemption from execution. Florida opposed the application and argued that neither issue provided a basis for a stay. The Court considered the request under an extremely short warrant-stage timetable.
On July 28, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and denied the stay application. The order did not contain a lengthy opinion resolving the broader policy debate about executing elderly prisoners. It meant that no Supreme Court order prevented Florida from carrying out the execution that evening.
When Was Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr Executed?
Florida executed Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr on July 28, 2026. Florida Department of Corrections records list him as execution number 137, show that his offense occurred in Pasco County, and record approximately 38 years on death row. His date of birth was August 29, 1945, making him 80 at the time of execution.
Occhicone was the oldest prisoner Florida had executed during its modern record-keeping period and the second-oldest known person executed in the modern United States at that time. Before the execution, he apologized to the victims’ relatives and to members of his own family. Associated Press reporting also noted that his age had become a significant part of the public debate surrounding the execution.
His execution occurred six hours after Florida executed James Aren Duckett on the same day. Florida had not conducted two executions on one day in more than 60 years, making July 28 unusual even within the state’s death-penalty history. The two executions also occurred during a period of exceptionally frequent executions in Florida.
Did His Age Make the Execution Unconstitutional?
Occhicone argued that executing him at 80 years old, with several medical problems, violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. His lawyers pointed to age-related deterioration and health conditions while asking the courts to stop the execution. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the argument.
The court did not establish a rule that elderly prisoners can never bring a valid execution-related medical claim. Instead, it rejected the particular claim before it, including on timing grounds, and concluded that the facts presented did not create the constitutional exemption Occhicone sought. That narrower description is more accurate than saying U.S. law permits execution regardless of every possible health condition.
The broader debate remains contested as a matter of policy and constitutional litigation. AP reported that death-row prisoners have become older on average because capital cases often remain in litigation for many years, while opponents of executing elderly prisoners argue that advanced age can change the punishment’s purpose and human impact. Those policy arguments did not help Occhicone.
Why Did the Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr Case Last So Long?
The case dragged on because of several distinct layers of review. Direct appeal examined errors in the trial and sentence; state collateral litigation raised later claims; federal habeas reviewed qualifying federal constitutional issues; and successive Florida proceedings considered even later developments. The death-warrant stage then created a final set of expedited challenges in 2026.
His case also crossed major changes in Florida death-penalty law. Occhicone was sentenced under a system used in the 1980s, remained on death row when Hurst v. Florida changed Florida capital sentencing decades later, and lived long enough to challenge a 7-5 recommendation against a newer law requiring a larger jury vote. The courts nevertheless concluded that those later developments did not retroactively overturn his final sentence.
This is why the procedural history is more useful than simply saying he “appealed for almost 40 years.” Some proceedings challenged the conviction, some challenged the sentence, some involved federal constitutional law, and others concerned the method or timing of execution. Each stage had a different legal function.
Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr. Case Timeline
Major events in the case
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| June 10, 1986 | Raymond and Martha Artzner are killed in Pasco County, Florida. |
| 1987 | Occhicone is convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and receives life for one murder and death for the other. |
| October 11, 1990 | The Florida Supreme Court affirms the convictions and death sentence. |
| 1991 | The U.S. Supreme Court denies review, making the sentence final for Florida postconviction timing purposes. |
| April 8, 1993 | The Florida Supreme Court denies his state habeas petition. |
| June 29, 2000 | The Florida Supreme Court affirms denial of his initial postconviction motion. |
| 2006 | The Eleventh Circuit affirms denial of federal habeas relief. |
| January 30, 2018 | The Florida Supreme Court rejects his Hurst-based successive postconviction claim. |
| June 26, 2026 | Governor Ron DeSantis signs a death warrant. |
| July 21, 2026 | The Florida Supreme Court rejects his final state postconviction claims and denies a stay. |
| July 28, 2026 | The U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari and a stay, and Florida executes Occhicone later that day. |
Was the 2026 Case a New Murder Trial?
No. Occhicone v. State, No. SC2026-1042, was an appeal involving a second successive motion for postconviction relief filed after the governor signed the death warrant. A jury convicted Occhicone decades earlier, and the original direct appeal concluded long before 2026.
The 2026 proceeding therefore did not ask a new jury to decide whether Occhicone murdered Raymond and Martha Artzner. The Florida Supreme Court was examining later legal claims about whether the death sentence or execution could still lawfully be carried out. That distinction matters because fresh docket entries can make an old criminal case appear to be a new prosecution.
The conviction itself remained in place throughout those warrant-stage proceedings. What Occhicone sought was postconviction relief and a stay of execution. When those requests failed, the original judgment remained enforceable.
Direct Appeal, Habeas, Hurst, and Warrant Review Are Not the Same
The main legal stages of Occhicone’s case
| Proceeding | Main purpose |
|---|---|
| Direct appeal | Reviewed alleged legal errors from the original trial and sentencing. |
| State postconviction and habeas | Addressed qualifying collateral challenges after direct review had ended. |
| Federal habeas | Allowed limited federal review of qualifying constitutional claims after state-court proceedings. |
| 2018 Hurst litigation | Asked whether newer constitutional rules governing Florida capital sentencing applied retroactively to his sentence. |
| 2026 warrant-stage litigation | Challenged the planned execution using claims involving lethal injection, age, records, execution pace, and the old jury recommendation. |
What Is the Current Status of the Case?
The Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr. case is no longer pending as an effort to prevent an upcoming execution. Florida carried out the death sentence on July 28, 2026, after his final Supreme Court stay application was denied. The Florida Department of Corrections records the execution as completed.
That current status is important because older articles and docket summaries may still say that Occhicone “is scheduled to be executed.” Such wording was accurate before July 28 but is now outdated. A current page should clearly distinguish between claims made before the execution and the final outcome.
The case may still appear in legal research because its older opinions remain precedential or useful for studying Florida criminal procedure, habeas law, capital sentencing, and warrant-stage litigation. Historical legal relevance does not mean the execution itself remains unresolved. As of October 31, 2026, that event is complete.
Occhicone’s federal litigation provides a natural reason to explain the role of habeas corpus. TheLawLearner’s article on how a writ of habeas corpus safeguards individual freedom explains why habeas differs from a direct appeal and why winning a habeas case does not necessarily mean immediate release. That distinction is directly relevant to understanding why Occhicone had both ordinary appeals and later habeas proceedings.
Conclusion
Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr. was convicted of murdering Raymond and Martha Artzner after the June 10, 1986 shootings at their Pasco County home. A jury recommended death for both murders by a 7-5 vote, but the judge imposed life imprisonment for Raymond Artzner’s murder and a death sentence for Martha Artzner’s murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence in 1990, and the judgment became final for postconviction purposes after the U.S. Supreme Court declined review in 1991.
The following decades involved several different forms of legal review. Occhicone unsuccessfully pursued state habeas relief, Florida postconviction motions, federal habeas relief, and a later Hurst-based challenge to the sentencing process. After Governor Ron DeSantis signed his death warrant in June 2026, Occhicone brought another round of claims involving execution procedures, his age and health, Florida’s execution activity, public records, and the old 7-5 jury recommendation.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected those final state claims on July 21, 2026, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied both certiorari and a stay on July 28. Florida executed Occhicone later that day at age 80 after approximately 38 years on death row. Any current article about Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr. should therefore describe the execution as completed while clearly separating the original murder case from the many later forms of review.
Frequently asked questions
Who was Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr?
Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr was a Florida prisoner convicted of murdering Raymond and Martha Artzner, the parents of his former girlfriend, in 1986. He received life imprisonment for Raymond Artzner’s murder and a death sentence for Martha Artzner’s murder. Florida executed him on July 28, 2026 after decades of unsuccessful state and federal challenges.
Why was Dominick Occhicone sentenced to death?
The jury recommended death for both murders by a 7-5 vote, but the judge imposed death only for Martha Artzner’s murder. The judge found aggravating circumstances including a prior violent-felony conviction, commission of the murder during a burglary, and a finding that the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated. The court also considered mitigating evidence, but it did not prevent the death sentence on that count.
What happened to Occhicone’s Hurst challenge?
Occhicone sought relief after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida changed the constitutional analysis of Florida’s capital-sentencing system. The Florida Supreme Court rejected his claim in 2018 because his death sentence had become final in 1991 and the court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to him. His original 7-5 jury recommendation therefore did not produce a new sentencing hearing.
What were Dominick Occhicone’s final 2026 appeals about?
His final state litigation challenged issues involving Florida’s lethal-injection process, access to execution-related records, his advanced age and health, the pace of Florida executions, and his old 7-5 jury recommendation. The Florida Supreme Court rejected those claims and denied a stay on July 21, 2026. The U.S. Supreme Court then denied his final certiorari petition and stay application on July 28.
When was Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr executed?
Florida executed Dominick Anthony Occhicone Jr on July 28, 2026. He was 80 years old and had spent approximately 38 years on death row, according to Florida Department of Corrections records. His execution occurred after the U.S. Supreme Court denied his final request for a stay earlier the same day.
