The Florida Supreme Court has denied postconviction relief and a habeas corpus petition for Mesac Damas, a death row inmate whose original conviction and death sentence were upheld by the same court in 2018. In a corrected opinion issued Oct. 1, 2025, Justice Couriel wrote for the court in the consolidated cases *Mesac Damas v. State of Florida* (No. SC2023-1476) and *Mesac Damas v. Secretary, Department of Corrections* (No. SC2024-0565).
Damas had appealed an order from the circuit court denying his initial motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. He raised three issues that he argued required reversal of his death sentence, though the specific nature of these claims was not detailed in the available portions of the opinion. The court found none of his arguments persuasive and affirmed the lower court's denial.
The case stems from a 2009 family massacre that the Florida Supreme Court has now addressed multiple times. According to the court's previous opinion in *Damas v. State* (2018), Damas killed his wife and five young children by cutting their throats with a fillet knife. The victims included children ages nine, six, five, three, and not quite two years old. The murders followed what the court described as years of threats, domestic violence, and litigation within the family.
After committing the murders, Damas fled to Haiti but was apprehended shortly after arriving at the airport in Port-au-Prince. He confessed to the killings, attributing them to "bad spirits" and voodoo spells that he claimed were cast upon him by his mother-in-law. In his confession to authorities, Damas explained that after killing his wife, he decided not to spare the children because they would have been placed in his mother-in-law's custody.
The Florida Supreme Court first reviewed Damas's case in 2018, when it upheld both his convictions and death sentences. That decision came after the trial court proceedings that resulted in his initial conviction and sentencing. The 2018 opinion provided a detailed recounting of the crimes and the legal proceedings that followed.
In the current consolidated cases, Damas pursued two separate legal avenues. The first case involved his appeal of the circuit court's denial of his postconviction relief motion under Rule 3.851. This rule allows defendants to challenge their convictions and sentences based on various grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or constitutional violations that were not raised during the original trial or appeal.
The second case involved Damas's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed against the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. Habeas corpus petitions allow inmates to challenge the legality of their detention, often raising issues related to constitutional violations or jurisdictional problems with their conviction or sentence.
Justice Couriel, writing for the court, noted that this marked the second time the court had to address what he characterized as a "woeful tale." The language suggests the court's recognition of the tragic nature of the crimes while maintaining the judicial restraint appropriate for appellate review.
The court exercised jurisdiction over both cases under Article V, Section 3(b)(1) and (9) of the Florida Constitution, which grants the Florida Supreme Court authority over direct appeals in death penalty cases and habeas corpus petitions in certain circumstances.
The denial of both the postconviction relief appeal and the habeas corpus petition represents a significant setback for Damas's legal challenges to his death sentence. These proceedings typically represent crucial stages in capital cases, as they provide opportunities for defendants to raise claims that may not have been available or fully developed during their original trial and direct appeal.
While the full reasoning behind the court's denial was not available in the excerpted portions of the opinion, the court's decision suggests that Damas's three argued grounds for reversal did not meet the legal standards required for postconviction relief under Florida law.
The case continues a pattern of Florida Supreme Court review in death penalty cases, where the court must carefully examine both the original convictions and subsequent challenges while maintaining consistency with established legal precedent and constitutional requirements.
For Damas, the denial of these appeals likely exhausts significant avenues for challenging his death sentence within the Florida state court system, though other potential legal remedies may remain available through federal courts or other proceedings.