DocketNumber: SC17-837
Judges: Labarga, Quince, Polston, Lawson, Pariente, Lewis, Canady
Filed Date: 1/26/2018
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
We have for review Ian Deco Lightb-ourne’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Lightbourne’s motion filed pursuant to Florida.Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Lightbourne’s motion sought reliéf pursuant 'to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision- on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Lightbourne’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied,- — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Lightbourne responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Lightbourne’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lightbourne is not entitled to relief. Lightbourne was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by an unrecorded vote. See Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 391 (Fla. 1983).
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lightbourne, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
. The jury’s vote recommending a sentence of •death was unrecorded, and, therefore, is not reflected in this Court’s opinion on direct appeal. See Appellant’s Br, Resp. Show Cause Order, Lightbourne v. State, No. SCI 7-837 (Fla. Oct. 16, 2017), at 12, 2017 WL 4812802.