JAMES ARMANDO CARD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court granted James Card's habeas corpus petition under Hurst v. Florida, which requires jury unanimity on factual findings necessary for capital punishment. Because Card's penalty phase jury voted 11-1 for death rather than unanimously, the court vacated his death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase.
Hurst applies retroactively to Card because his sentence became final four days after Ring v. Arizona was decided. The Hurst error in Card's case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury did not unanimously find the requisite factual findings for death, and the court cannot determine whether the jury unanimously found each aggravating factor, whether aggravators were sufficient for death, or whether they outweighed mitigating circumstances.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] In the context of a 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“[I]n the context of a Hurst v. Florida error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's failure to unanimously find all the facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to [the] death sentence.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a Hurst error is harmless—the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that non-unanimity did not contribute to the death sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Armando Card received a death sentence recommended by his penalty phase jury by a vote of eleven to one. Card's sentence became final on June 28…
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 Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
James Armando Card petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida (Hurst v. Florida), 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
Card’s sentence of death, which his penalty phase jury recommended by a vote of eleven to one, became final when the United States Supreme Court denied Card’s petition for writ of certiorari on June 28, 2002. See Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2001) cert. denied Card v. Florida 536 U.S. 963, 122 S.Ct. 2673, 153 L.Ed.2d 845 (2002); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(1)(B). We have held that Hurst applies retroactively to “defendants whose sentences became final after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)].” Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248, 1276 (Fla. 2016). Thus, Hurst applies retroactively to Card, whose sentence became final four days after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring.
Accordingly, we must determine whether the Hurst error in Card’s penalty phase proceeding was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[I]n the context of a Hurst v. Florida error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s failure to unanimously find all the facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to [the] death sentence.” Hurst, 202 So.3d at 68. As applied to the right to a jury trial with regard to the factual findings necessary to impose a sentence of death, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have unanimously found that each aggravating factor was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances. See id. at 44.
We conclude that the State cannot establish that the Hurst error in Card’s case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Card’s case, the jury did not unanimously make the requisite factual findings and did not unanimously recommend a sentence of death. Instead, the jury recommended the sentence of death by a vote of eleven to one. Card, 803 So.2d at 619. This Court has no way of knowing if the jury unanimously found each aggravating factor, whether the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a death sentence, or whether the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Further, this Court cannot speculate why the one juror who voted to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment determined that a sentence of death was not the appropriate punishment. Thus, we conclude that the Hurst error in Card’s case was not harmless. The petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is hereby granted. Accordingly, we vacate the death sentence and remand this matter to the circuit court for a new penalty phase.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. Jones, 225 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2017)…we cannot conclude that the Hurst error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1274. Accordingly, we vacated Orme’s sentence of death and remanded for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst. Id. Most recently in Card v. Jones, 219 So. 3d 47, 2017 WL 1743835 (Fla. May 4, 2017), this Court granted Hurst relief based on the 11-1 jury vote recommending death. At Card’s sentencing, “the trial court found five aggravating factors: (1) the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged…
-
Dusty Ray Spencer v. State, 259 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2018)…617 (Fla. 2001). However, because this Court granted Card a resentencing, his sentence of death did not become final until after Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), and he was granted Hurst relief. Card v. Jones , 219 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2017).…
-
Doorbal v. Jones, 227 So. 3d 110 (Fla. 2017)…June 27, 2003. Doorbal, 539 U.S. 962, 123 S.Ct. 2647. Thus, Doorbal falls within the category of defendants to whom Hurst is applicable. See Hertz v. Jones, 218 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 2017); Hernandez v. Jones, 217 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. 2017); Card v. Jones, 219 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2017). Accordingly, the issue is then whether any error that occurred during the penalty phase was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Although three aggravating factors were necessarily found by a unanimous vote of the jury—(1) conviction of…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002)
- Hurst v. Florida., 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)
- Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016)
- Card v. State, 803 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2001)
- Czajkowski v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)
- Douglas v. United States, 536 U.S. 963 (U.S. 2002)
- Hatfield v. Arkansas, 536 U.S. 963 (U.S. 2002)