MARBEL MENDOZA, 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.
Marbel Mendoza appealed the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which established new jury voting requirements for capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to death sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to death sentences that became final before the Hurst decision. Because Mendoza's death sentence became final in 1998, well before Hurst was decided, Mendoza is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A prior Florida Supreme Court decision on remand in Hurst v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mendoza's sentence of death.”
Establishes the core holding that Hurst's new jury voting requirements do not retroactively apply to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMendoza was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Mendoza's death sentence became final in 1998. …
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 Hurst V. Florida cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Marbel Mendoza’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Mendoza’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Mendoza’s 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 Mendoza’s 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, Mendoza responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive.in this case.
After reviewing Mendoza’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the *303State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Mendoza is not entitled to relief. Mendoza was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Mendoza v. State, 700 So.2d 670, 673 (Fla. 1997). Mendoza’s sentence of death became final in 1998. Mendoza v. Florida, 525 U.S. 839, 119 S.Ct. 101, 142 L.Ed.2d 81 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mendoza’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mendoza’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Mendoza, 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.
PARIENTE, J.,
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 (12 total)
- 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)
- Marbel Mendoza v. State, 700 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1997)