LAW.coLAW.co

Alvin Leroy MORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Florida Supreme Court2018-02-02No. No. SC17–1715
236 So. 3d 242

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

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

After reviewing Mortons response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Morton is not entitled to relief. Morton was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 327 (Fla. 2001). Following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one on both counts, the trial court sentenced Morton to death on both counts, and his sentences became final in 2001. Id. at 328. Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mortons sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mortons motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morton, 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, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock.