LAW.coLAW.co

Steven Edward STEIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Florida Supreme Court2018-01-31No. No. SC17–1547
237 So. 3d 919

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

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

After reviewing Steins response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Stein is not entitled to relief. A jury convicted Stein of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended a sentence of death for both murders by a vote of ten to two. Stein v. State, 632 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Fla. 1994). Steins sentences of death became final in 1994. Stein v. Florida, 513 U.S. 834, 115 S.Ct. 111, 130 L.Ed.2d 58 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Steins sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Steins motion.

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