Florida executes William Reaves for 1986 killing of Indian River County deputy after U.S. Supreme Court denies stay

Florida executed William Reaves on Oct. 20 for the September 1986 shooting death of Indian River County sheriff’s deputy Richard Raczkoski. The Associated Press, in a report published by WUSF, said Reaves, 77, was pronounced dead at 6:12 p.m. after a three-drug lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke.¹

Earlier that day, the U.S. Supreme Court denied his application for a stay and his petition for review, with no noted dissent.²

TCPalm reported that Reaves, asked whether he had any last words, answered, “No, I do not.” The newspaper reported that 29 witnesses watched, among them the deputy’s brother, Marc Raczkoski, and Indian River County Sheriff Eric Flowers, and that Marc Raczkoski said at a media briefing afterward that his brother “finally has justice.”³

The AP reported that it was Florida’s 18th execution of 2026, as of Oct. 20.¹

The warrant and final appeals

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the death warrant on Sept. 18, setting the execution for Oct. 20 at 6 p.m., according to an Oct. 2 order of Indian River County Circuit Judge Anastasia M. Norman. The order says the Office of Executive Clemency advised by letter the same day that the governor had denied clemency, after proceedings that began in March 2023.⁴

Judge Norman’s order summarily denied a successive postconviction motion raising three claims: challenges to his clemency process and to Florida’s lethal-injection protocol, and newly discovered evidence of police corruption tied to a state witness.⁵⁴

On Oct. 14, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, denied a separate habeas corpus petition and declined to stay the execution. It found the method-of-execution claim untimely, procedurally barred and without merit, and held that its precedent gives no entitlement to clemency records and no constitutional right to effective clemency counsel. Six justices concurred; Justice Jorge Labarga concurred in result.⁵ An amicus brief from the Center for Veteran Criminal Advocacy argued that his jury never heard details of his Army combat service in Vietnam, and said the Department of Veterans Affairs rates him 100% disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder.⁴

Reaves’ U.S. Supreme Court petition, filed Oct. 17, asked whether due process is violated when state-appointed clemency counsel shuts a defendant out of preparing his clemency case, and whether the Florida Supreme Court’s treatment of mitigating evidence, including a combat veteran’s, violates the Eighth Amendment.⁶ Attorney General James Uthmeier’s office answered that Reaves had no constitutional claim to a specific clemency process and that he was trying to reopen Florida Supreme Court rulings from 2002 and 2012 that had long been settled.⁷

The case as the courts describe it

According to the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion, Raczkoski answered a 911 call that Reaves made from a convenience store pay phone in Vero Beach in the early morning, in September 1986. A firearm fell from Reaves’ shorts as they talked; after a struggle, Reaves regained control of it, refused to hand it over and shot the deputy in the back four times as he moved away. Arrested in Georgia, Reaves confessed, telling police he had been on cocaine and was afraid.⁵

His first conviction was reversed in 1991 because the prosecutor had a conflict of interest. At a retrial, a jury rejected a voluntary-intoxication defense, found him guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and recommended death 10-2; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in 1994.⁵ Federal district court orders granting him relief in 2011 and 2015 were each reversed by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, his petition says.⁶

What the records do not show

• The Department of Corrections’ execution list could not be retrieved, so the time of death and 2026 count come from news reports.
• The governor’s warrant itself was not reviewed; its date and time come from the circuit court order.
• The records reviewed do not give reasons for the clemency decision.
• The U.S. Supreme Court’s orders give no reasons for the denials.