LAW.coLAW.co

Floyd William DAMREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Florida Supreme Court2018-02-02No. No. SC17–1080
236 So. 3d 230

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Floyd William Damrens appeal of the circuit courts order denying Damrens motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Damrens motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Courts 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 Damrens 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, Damren responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Damrens response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Damren is not entitled to relief. Damren was sentenced to death following a jurys unanimous recommendation for death. Damren v. State, 696 So.2d 709, 710 (Fla. 1997). Damrens sentence of death became final in 1998.

Damren v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1054, 118 S.Ct. 706, 139 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Damrens sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Damrens motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Damren, 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 Courts opinion in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock.