Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Sonny Ray Jeffries’ motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Jeffries was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Jeffries was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Jeffries’ sentence of death became final in January 2002. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Jeffries’ sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Jeffries’ motion. View "Jeffries v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Sonny Ray Jeffries’ motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Jeffries was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Jeffries was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Jeffries’ sentence of death became final in January 2002. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Jeffries’ sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Jeffries’ motion. View "Jeffries v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Charles William Finney’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Finney was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Finney was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Finney’s sentence of death became final in 1996. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Finney’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Finney’s motion. View "Finney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Charles William Finney’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Finney was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Finney was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Finney’s sentence of death became final in 1996. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Finney’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Finney’s motion. View "Finney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Kenneth Hartley’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Hartley was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Hartley was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Finney’s sentence of death became final in 1997. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Hartley’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Hartley’s motion. View "Hartley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Kenneth Hartley’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Hartley was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Hartley was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Finney’s sentence of death became final in 1997. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Hartley’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Hartley’s motion. View "Hartley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Richard Harold Anderson’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Anderson was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Anderson was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Anderson’s sentence of death became final in 1991. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Anderson’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Anderson’s motion. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Richard Harold Anderson’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Anderson was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Anderson was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Anderson’s sentence of death became final in 1991. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Anderson’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Anderson’s motion. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Lenard James Philmore’s successive motion for postconviction relief under to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 seeking relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Philmore was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Philmore’s sentence of death became final on October 7, 2002. The postconviction court found that Hurst applied retroactively to Philmore’s sentence of death but that any Hurst error was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Hurst error in Philmore’s case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that Philmore was not entitled to relief on his other claims. View "Philmore v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Lenard James Philmore’s successive motion for postconviction relief under to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 seeking relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Philmore was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Philmore’s sentence of death became final on October 7, 2002. The postconviction court found that Hurst applied retroactively to Philmore’s sentence of death but that any Hurst error was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Hurst error in Philmore’s case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that Philmore was not entitled to relief on his other claims. View "Philmore v. State" on Justia Law