Etheria V. Jackson v. State of Florida ( 2022 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC21-754
____________
ETHERIA VERDELL JACKSON,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
January 20, 2022
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Etheria Verdell Jackson’s appeal of the
circuit court’s order summarily denying his successive motion for
postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.851. 1 In that motion, Jackson argues that he is
entitled to retroactive application of our decision in State v. Poole,
297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), which receded from Hurst v. State, 202
So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), except as to the requirement that “a jury
must unanimously find the existence of a statutory aggravating
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.” Poole, 297 So. 3d at
491.
After carefully reviewing Jackson’s arguments, we conclude
that he is not entitled to relief. Jackson was convicted of first-
degree murder and sentenced to death in accordance with the jury’s
seven-to-five vote recommendation. Jackson v. State, 530 So. 2d
269, 271 (Fla. 1988). His death sentence became final in 1989.
Jackson v. Florida, 488 U.S. 1050 (1989) (denying petition for
certiorari). Because his death sentence was final prior to Ring v.
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), Poole does not apply retroactively to
him. See Randolph v. State, 320 So. 3d 629, 631 (Fla. 2021); Asay
v. State, 210 So. 3d 1, 22 (Fla. 2016). 2 We also summarily reject
Jackson’s claims that he is entitled to relief under either the Eighth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. We further conclude that Jackson’s Sixth Amendment
claim is procedurally barred. In his prior successive postconviction
motion, Jackson raised essentially the same arguments advanced in
his current motion. See Hendrix v. State, 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125
(Fla. 2014) (“Claims raised and rejected in prior postconviction
proceedings are procedurally barred from being relitigated in a
successive motion.”); see also Fla. R. Crim P. 3.851(e)(2).
-2-
Accordingly, because none of Jackson’s claims warrant relief,
we affirm the challenged order.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ,
COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County,
Tatiana R. Salvador, Judge
Case No. 161985CF012620AXXXMA
Eric Pinkard, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Natalia C. Reyna-
Pimiento, Julissa R. Fontán, and Heather A. Forgét, Assistant
Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace,
Florida,
for Appellant
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Janine D. Robinson, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee
-3-