SONNY RAY JEFFRIES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Sonny Ray Jeffries' Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on Hurst v. Florida. The Court held that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jeffries' death sentence, which became final in 2002, because it was a jury recommendation by an 11-1 vote rather than a unanimous verdict requirement established by Hurst.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jeffries' sentence of death because his sentence became final in January 2002, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Jeffries is not entitled to relief.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on Hurst v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Jeffries was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one, and his sentence of death became final in January 2002.”
Establishes the critical fact that Jeffries' sentence became final before Hurst was decided, triggering the retroactivity bar.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSonny Ray Jeffries was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. His sentence of death became final i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Death Penalty Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Sonny Ray Jeffries’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Jeffries’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Jeffries’ motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s 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 Jef-fries’ 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, Jeffries responded to. .this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Jeffries’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Jef-fries .is not entitled to relief. Jeffries was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one, and his sentence of death became final in January 2002. Jeffries v. State, 797 So.2d 573, 576 (Fla. 2001). Thus, Hurst *284does not apply retroactively to Jeffries’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Jeffries’ motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jeffries, 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.
concurring in result.
I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s 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.
concurring in result.
I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hurst v. Florida., 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)
- Florida v. Hurst., 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017)
- Rainey v. Dist. Attorney Off. of Philadelphia., 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Ward v. Neal, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Boone v. Lorie Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2163 (U.S. 2017)
- Loud v. Lorie Davis, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Allen v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Sonny Ray Jeffries v. State, 797 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2001)