WILLIAM M. KOPSHO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WILLIAM M. KOPSHO, PETITIONER, V. JULIE L. JONES, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2017-01-19
Nos. SC15-1256; No. SC15-1762
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur., PERRY, Senior Justice, concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion., CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent.
209 So. 3d 568 Florida Supreme Court (2017) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 209 So. 3d 668
Cited by 40 cases

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.

Synopsis

William Kopsho appeals his death sentence in a first-degree murder case after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida invalidated Florida's capital sentencing scheme. The Florida Supreme Court vacates Kopsho's death sentence and remands for a new penalty phase, finding that the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury voted 10-2 to impose death without unanimously finding aggravating factors.


Holding

The court held that Kopsho's sentence resulted from a Hurst v. Florida error because the jury did not unanimously find that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, although three aggravators were such that no reasonable juror would dispute them, the court could not determine that the jury unanimously found that aggravators outweighed mitigation or unanimously recommended death.


Headnotes

[1] A jury's failure to unanimously find all facts necessary to impose a death sentence constitutes a violation of Hurst v. …

[2] A sentencing error where the judge, rather than the jury, made all necessary findings to impose a death sentence is subject to harmless error review.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“that Florida's capital sentencing scheme [is] unconstitutional to the extent that it fail[s] to require the jury, rather than the judge, to find the facts necessary to impose the death sentence.”

Establishes the Hurst v. Florida holding that invalidates Florida's sentencing scheme where judges impose death sentences based on facts not unanimously found by the jury.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Kopsho was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after the jury voted 10-2 to impose a death sentence. The trial court found four ag…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

William Kopsho appeals an order of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death, filed under 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. For the following reasons, we vacate Kopsho’s sentence and remand for a new penalty phase. See Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 69 (Fla. 2016).

The facts of this case were presented in this Court’s opinion on direct appeal. See Kopsho v. State, 84 So.3d 204, 209-10 (Fla. 2012). After the penalty phase, the jury voted ten to two to impose a death sentence, and the trial court sentenced Kop-sho to death. Id. at 210. On direct appeal in 2012, this Court affirmed Kopsho’s conviction and sentence. Id. at 211.

Kopsho filed his postconviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence on November 19, 2014. After a case management conference held on March 9, 2015, the circuit court determined that no evidentiary hearing was warranted and entered an order summarily denying Kop-sho’s initial posteonviction motion on March 23,2015.

While Kopsho’s appeal from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), holding, in short, “that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme [is] unconstitutional to the extent that it fail[s] to require the jury, rather than the judge, to find the facts necessary to impose the death sentence.” Hurst, 202 So.3d at 43-44 (citing Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. at 619).

*570Because Kopsho was condemned to death by a vote of ten to two, we find that Kopsho’s sentence is the result of a Hurst v. Florida error. We therefore must consider whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hurst, 202 So.3d at 67.

The harmless error test, as set forth in Chapman[ v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967),] and progeny, places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

Id. at 68 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)).

The jury in this case recommended death by a vote of ten to two. While three of the aggravators in this case are such that no reasonable juror would not have found their existence,1 we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation. We can only determine that the jury did not unanimously recommend a sentence of death.

Because we cannot make these determinations, we cannot say that there is no possibility that the error did not contribute to the sentence. We therefore determine that the error in Kopsho’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for a new penalty phase. See Hurst, 202 So.3d at 69.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

PERRY, Senior Justice, concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent.

PERRY,

Senior Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that the Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), error in this case is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as I expressed in Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 75 (Fla. 2016) (Perry, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), “[t]here is no compelling reason for this Court not to apply the plain language of section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes.” I therefore dissent to the majority’s decision to remand for a new penalty phase and would instead remand for the imposition of a life sentence.

Other
PERRY,

Senior Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that the Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), error in this case is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as I expressed in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 75 (Fla. 2016) (Perry, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), “[t]here is no compelling reason for this Court not to apply the plain language of section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes.” I therefore dissent to the majority’s decision to remand for a new penalty phase and would instead remand for the imposition of a life sentence.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (20 total)

  • Glover v. State, 226 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 2017)
    …210 So. 3d 1160, 1200 (Fla. 2017). Accordingly, Glover’s direct appeal is subject to Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State. See id.. In light of the ten-to-two jury recommendation for death, Hurst error occurred in Glover’s case. See Kopsho v. State, 209 So. 3d 568, 570 (Fla. 2017) (“Because Kopsho was condemned by. a vote of ten to two, we find that Kopsho’s sentence is the result of Hurst v, Florida error.”). We must next consider whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: “The harmless error…
  • Patrick v. State, 246 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 2018)
    …t 1276. Because Patrick's death sentence became final in 2013, Hurst applies retroactively to him. See id. And because the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of seven to five, Patrick's death sentence violates Hurst . See Kopsho v. State , 209 So. 3d 568, 570 (Fla. 2017). Accordingly, we must consider whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: The harmless error test, as set forth in Chapman [v. California , 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967),] and progeny, places the b…
  • Dane Patrick Abdool v. State, 220 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2017)
    …eme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). Because the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two, we conclude that Abdool’s death sentence violates Hurst. See Kopsho v. State, 209 So. 3d 568, 570 (Fla. 2017). We must then consider whether the Hurst error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: The harmless error test, as set forth in Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967),] and progeny, places the burd…

Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw