Robert D. Morris v. State of Florida , 236 So. 3d 324 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC17-873
    ____________
    ROBERT D. MORRIS,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    [January 26, 2018]
    PER CURIAM.
    We have for review Robert D. Morris’s appeal of the circuit court’s order
    denying Morris’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
    3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
    Morris’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
    decision in Hurst v. Florida, 
    136 S. Ct. 616
    (2016), and our decision on remand in
    Hurst v. State (Hurst), 
    202 So. 3d 40
    (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 
    137 S. Ct. 2161
    (2017). This Court stayed Morris’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v.
    State, 
    226 So. 3d 216
    (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 
    138 S. Ct. 513
    (2017). After this
    Court decided Hitchcock, Morris responded to this Court’s order to show cause
    arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
    After reviewing Morris’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the
    State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Morris is not entitled to relief. Morris
    was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of
    eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in May 2002. Morris v.
    State, 
    811 So. 2d 661
    , 664 (Fla. 2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to
    Morris’s sentence of death. See 
    Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217
    . Accordingly, we
    affirm the denial of Morris’s motion.
    The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morris, we
    caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
    ordered.
    LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
    PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
    LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
    PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
    I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
    v. State, 
    226 So. 3d 216
    (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 
    138 S. Ct. 513
    (2017), is now
    final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting
    opinion in Hitchcock.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Polk County,
    Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge - Case No. 531994CF003961A1XXXX
    -2-
    James Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis,
    and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle
    Region, Temple Terrace, Florida,
    for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney
    General, Tampa, Florida,
    for Appellee
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SC17-873

Citation Numbers: 236 So. 3d 324

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/26/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024