Gary Lawrence v. State of Florida ( 2020 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC18-1172
____________
GARY LAWRENCE,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
June 11, 2020
PER CURIAM.
Gary Lawrence appeals an order summarily denying his second successive
motion for postconviction relief, which was filed under Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.851.1 We affirm the denial of relief.
In 1995, Lawrence was convicted of the first-degree murder of Michael
Finken, conspiracy to commit murder, auto theft, and petty theft. Lawrence v.
State, 698 So. 2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 1997). He was sentenced to death for Mr.
Finken’s murder, and on direct appeal, we affirmed Lawrence’s convictions and
sentences. Id. at 1222. His death sentence became final on January 20, 1998,
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review. See Lawrence v.
Florida, 522 U.S. 1080 (1998). We denied habeas relief and affirmed the denial of
Lawrence’s initial postconviction motion in Lawrence v. State, 831 So. 2d 121,
137 (Fla. 2002). We also affirmed the denial of Lawrence’s successive
postconviction motion seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016),
and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v.
Poole, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S41 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), clarified, 45 Fla. L. Weekly
S121 (Fla. Apr. 2, 2020). Lawrence v. State, 236 So. 3d 240, 240-41 (Fla. 2018).
In 2018, Lawrence filed a second successive postconviction motion claiming
that he is intellectually disabled. We conclude that Lawrence’s argument lacks
merit. As this Court stated in Phillips v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S163, S165-67
(Fla. May 21, 2020); Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), does not apply
retroactively. Therefore, Lawrence is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s summary denial of
Lawrence’s intellectual disability claim.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.
LABARGA, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
COURIEL, J., did not participate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
-2-
LABARGA, J., concurring in result.
This Court has consistently affirmed the denial of relief in cases where the
defendant failed to timely raise an intellectual disability claim based on Atkins v.
Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). See Bowles v. State, 276 So. 3d 791, 794-95 (Fla.
2019); Harvey v. State, 260 So. 3d 906, 907 (Fla. 2018); Blanco v. State, 249 So.
3d 536, 537 (Fla. 2018); Rodriguez v. State, 250 So. 3d 616, 616 (Fla. 2016).
Similarly, Lawrence did not timely seek relief under Atkins, and I agree with the
majority that he is not entitled to relief.
However, I strongly disagree with the majority’s reliance on its decision in
Phillips v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S163 (Fla. May 21, 2020) (holding that Hall v.
Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), is not to be retroactively applied, and receding from
Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016)). Consequently, I can only concur in the
result.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Santa Rosa County,
David Rimmer, Judge - Case No 571994CF000397XXAXMX
Robert S. Friedman, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Stacy Biggart and
Matletha Bennette, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Northern
Region, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellant
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Janine D. Robinson, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee
-3-
Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender,
Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Amicus Curiae
-4-