KAYLE BARRINGTON BATES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. KAYLE BARRINGTON BATES, PETITIONER, V. JULIE L. JONES, ETC., RESPONDENT.
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.
Kayle Bates appeals the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion and petitions for habeas corpus relief based on Hurst v. Florida, arguing his death sentence should be vacated. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bates' sentence because it became final in 2000, before Hurst was decided.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bates' death sentence because his sentence became final in 2000, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Bates is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 may be denied when a prior controlling appellate decision renders the defend…
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 Bates' sentence of death.”
Establishes the core holding that retroactive application of Hurst is not available because Bates' sentence became final in 2000.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBates was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation by a vote of nine to three. His death sentence became final in 2000. He sought relief bas…
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 Application cases and more on FLexlaw
Kayle Barrington Bates appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.
Bates seeks 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 Bates' appeal and consideration of his habeas petition 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, Bates responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both cases.
After reviewing Bates' response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Bates is not entitled to relief. Bates was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to *99three. Bates v. State, 750 So.2d 6, 9 (Fla. 1999). Bates' sentence of death became final in 2000. Bates v. Florida, 531 U.S. 835, 121 S.Ct. 93, 148 L.Ed.2d 53 (2000). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bates' sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Bates' motion and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Bates, 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 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
Cited By
-
Kayle B. Bates v. State of Fla. & Kayle B. Bates v. Sec'y, 416 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 2025)…2, at *1 (Fla. July 18, 2016) (striking Bates’ habeas petition without prejudice); Bates v. State (Bates VIII), 218 So. 3d 426, 427 (Fla. 2017) (affirming circuit court’s denial of Bates’ successive postconviction motion); Bates v. State (Bates IX), 238 So. 3d 98, 98-99 (Fla. 2018) (affirming circuit court’s denial of Bates’ successive postconviction motion and denying Bates’ habeas petition); Bates v. State (Bates X), 398 So. 3d 406, 406-08 (Fla. 2024) (affirming circuit court’s denial of Bates’ successive…
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)
- Kayle Barrington Bates v. State, 750 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1999)