LAW.coLAW.co

Antonio Lebaron MELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Florida Supreme Court2018-02-02No. No. SC17–1147
236 So. 3d 234

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Meltons 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 Meltons 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, Melton responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Meltons response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Melton is not entitled to relief. Melton was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Melton v. State, 638 So.2d 927, 928 (Fla. 1994). His sentence of death became final in 1994. Melton v. Florida, 513 U.S. 971, 115 S.Ct. 441, 130 L.Ed.2d 352 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Meltons sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Meltons motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Melton, 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.