LAW.coLAW.co

Gary LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Florida Supreme Court2018-02-02No. No. SC17–1442
236 So. 3d 240

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

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

After reviewing Lawrences response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Lawrence is not entitled to relief. Lawrence was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three.

Lawrence v. State, 698 So.2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 1997). His sentence of death became final in 1998. Lawrence v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1080, 118 S.Ct. 863, 139 L.Ed.2d 761 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lawrences sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lawrences motion.

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