Wade Wilson, the Florida man known online as the “Deadpool Killer,” could take his challenge to his death sentences to the highest court in the United States after his state-level appeal failed to change the outcome of his case.

Wilson was sentenced to death in 2024 for the 2019 killings of Kristine Melton, 35, and Diane Ruiz, 43, in Cape Coral, Florida. His appellate attorney has argued that the way the jury recommended the death penalty violated constitutional protections because jurors were not required to reach a unanimous decision.

The dispute has now moved beyond the original trial and into a broader legal question about Florida’s death-penalty law. Wilson’s attorney, Michael Ufferman, indicated during a February 5, 2026, hearing before the Florida Supreme Court that he intended to preserve the constitutional arguments for possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, leaving Wilson’s death sentences in place at that stage of the proceedings. His attorney’s stated intention to seek federal review does not mean the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and no final outcome from that potential appeal should be assumed.

WHY WILSON’S CASE COULD REACH THE NATION’S HIGHEST COURT
The central issue in Wilson’s appeal concerns how Florida changed its death-penalty law in 2023.

Under the revised law, a jury can recommend a death sentence with at least eight votes in favor, rather than requiring every juror to agree. The change was significant because Florida had previously required a unanimous jury recommendation for a death sentence.

Wilson’s jury voted 9–3 in favor of death for the murder of Melton and 10–2 for the murder of Ruiz. The judge subsequently imposed death sentences for both killings.

His attorney argued that applying the revised law to Wilson’s case violated constitutional protections because the murders occurred in 2019, before the law was changed. The defense also contended that the new sentencing procedure conflicted with protections under both the U.S. Constitution and Florida’s Constitution.

The argument raises a question that extends beyond Wilson himself: can a state apply a changed sentencing rule to a case involving crimes committed before that rule took effect?

Wilson’s lawyers have argued that the answer should be no. However, Florida’s highest court had already considered similar challenges to the state’s non-unanimous jury law and upheld it in previous decisions.

Those earlier rulings presented a significant obstacle for Wilson’s appeal at the state level.

WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE FEBRUARY HEARING?
During the February 5 hearing, Ufferman did not attempt to repeat every argument contained in his written appeal. Instead, he acknowledged that the Florida Supreme Court had already addressed the legal questions in other cases.

His approach was to preserve the constitutional objections for potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court rather than spend the hearing rearguing issues the state court had previously rejected.

The state’s attorney asked the justices to affirm the lower court’s decision. The Florida Supreme Court did so, leaving Wilson’s two death sentences intact.

The brief hearing was an important procedural moment because it clarified the defense’s intended next step. Rather than treating the state court proceedings as the end of the constitutional dispute, Wilson’s attorney indicated that he wanted the arguments available for a possible petition to the federal court.

However, there is an important distinction between announcing an intention to appeal and actually obtaining review.

The U.S. Supreme Court generally has discretion over which cases it accepts. A defendant can ask the court to consider a constitutional question, but the justices are not required to hear the case. If the court declines to intervene, the lower court’s ruling generally remains in effect.

THE APPEAL CHALLENGES THE SENTENCE, NOT THE CONVICTIONS
Another important detail is that Wilson’s appeal focuses on the legality of his death sentences rather than seeking to overturn his murder convictions themselves.

A sentencing appeal can examine whether the court applied the correct law, whether the sentencing procedure complied with constitutional requirements and whether legal errors affected the punishment imposed.

In Wilson’s case, the defense has concentrated on the jury-vote threshold that permitted the judge to impose the death penalty.

The jury’s recommendations were not unanimous, but they met Florida’s current statutory requirements. The defense argues that the revised threshold should not have been applied to crimes committed before the change in law.

The state, by contrast, has relied on its existing legal framework and previous court decisions upholding the non-unanimous jury system.

This means the potential federal dispute is narrower than a retrial of the entire case. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to consider the issue, the focus would be on the constitutional validity of the sentencing procedure and the law’s application to Wilson.

Even if a court were to rule in his favor on that question, it would not automatically mean he would be released or that his convictions would be erased. Any remedy would depend on the scope of the ruling and the subsequent legal proceedings.

THE CASE BEHIND THE DEATH SENTENCES
Wilson’s case began on October 7, 2019, when two women were killed in Cape Coral within a short period.

Prosecutors established that Wilson was responsible for the deaths of Kristine Melton and Diane Ruiz. He was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in June 2024.

The evidence presented during the proceedings included testimony about the events leading up to the killings, forensic findings and statements Wilson made to investigators and others.

In August 2024, a judge sentenced him to death for both murders.

The case attracted extensive media coverage, and Wilson later became widely known online as the “Deadpool Killer,” a nickname associated with his name’s connection to the fictional Marvel character.

The attention surrounding his appearance and online following has sometimes overshadowed the victims and the legal issues involved. The current appeal, however, is not about his public image or internet popularity. It concerns the constitutionality of the process used to impose his sentences.

WHY FLORIDA’S DEATH-PENALTY LAW IS AT THE CENTER OF THE DISPUTE
Florida’s decision to permit non-unanimous jury recommendations has generated legal challenges from defendants facing capital punishment.

Supporters of the revised rule have argued that it allows death sentences to proceed without requiring a single juror to block the recommendation. Opponents have questioned whether such a system adequately protects defendants from the most severe punishment available under the law.

The constitutional question is especially significant because the death penalty is irreversible. Courts therefore examine whether capital sentencing procedures comply with the constitutional requirements governing criminal punishment.

Wilson’s case is part of that wider debate, but the fact that his attorney intends to seek further review does not establish that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Florida’s law.

For the defense to obtain meaningful relief, the federal court would first need to agree to hear the relevant legal question and then rule in a way that benefits Wilson’s case.

Until that happens, the state court’s ruling remains an important part of the legal record.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS ASKED TO INTERVENE?
If Wilson’s attorney submits a petition for a writ of certiorari, the filing would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court’s decision.

The justices would first decide whether the case merits review. They could decline the petition without hearing full arguments, or they could agree to consider the constitutional question.

If the court accepted the case, both sides would have an opportunity to submit legal briefs, and the justices could schedule oral arguments before issuing a decision.

A ruling for Wilson could potentially affect the validity of his death sentences or require further proceedings, depending on the court’s reasoning. A ruling against him, or a decision not to hear the case, would leave the state court’s decision in place unless another legal avenue provided relief.

The process can take time, and a possible petition should not be confused with an imminent execution date. Wilson’s case remains subject to the legal procedures that apply to capital sentences.

As of the latest verified developments in this report, his attorney had expressed an intention to pursue U.S. Supreme Court review, but that statement alone does not confirm that the federal court has accepted his case.

WILSON REMAINS ON DEATH ROW AS HIS LEGAL OPTIONS CONTINUE
Wilson remains on Florida’s death row while the legal process continues. His two death sentences were upheld by the Florida Supreme Court at the February 2026 stage of his appeal, and his attorney indicated that the constitutional arguments would be carried forward for possible federal review.

There is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the matter. The court receives many requests for review and accepts only a small portion of them.

The next meaningful development would be a confirmed filing and subsequent decision on whether the justices will hear the case.

For the families of Kristine Melton and Diane Ruiz, the proceedings continue years after the two women were killed. For Wilson, the legal challenge concerns whether the death sentences imposed in 2024 can withstand further constitutional scrutiny.

The case now illustrates how a criminal conviction and a death sentence can move through different stages of legal review. Wilson’s convictions remain distinct from his challenge to the sentencing procedure, and the potential federal appeal is focused on that specific issue.

For now, the death sentences remain in place, while the possibility of further review at the nation’s highest court remains a legal question rather than a guaranteed next step.

SOURCES
The News-Press — “Handsome Devil” Wade Wilson case may make it to U.S. Supreme Court