Anthony Lamarca v. State of Florida , 237 So. 3d 914 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC17-1179
    ____________
    ANTHONY LAMARCA,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    [January 30, 2018]
    PER CURIAM.
    We have for review Anthony Lamarca’s appeal of the circuit court’s order
    denying Lamarca’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
    3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
    Lamarca’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 Lamarca’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, Lamarca responded to this Court’s order to
    show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
    After reviewing Lamarca’s response to the order to show cause, as well as
    the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lamarca is not entitled to relief.
    Lamarca was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a
    vote of eleven to one. LaMarca v. State, 
    785 So. 2d 1209
    , 1211 (Fla. 2001).
    Lamarca’s sentence of death became final in 2001. LaMarca v. Florida, 
    534 U.S. 925
     (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lamarca’s sentence of
    death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
    Lamarca’s motion.
    The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lamarca, 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.
    -2-
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County,
    Nancy Moate Ley, Judge - Case No. 52199502070XXXXNO
    Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida; James Vincent
    Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant
    Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida,
    for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,
    for Appellee
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SC17-1179

Citation Numbers: 237 So. 3d 914

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/30/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024