JOHN CALVIN TAYLOR, II, 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.
John Calvin Taylor II petitioned for habeas corpus relief under Hurst v. Florida, challenging his death sentence imposed by a non-unanimous jury recommendation (10-2). The Florida Supreme Court held that Hurst applies retroactively to Taylor's final 2004 sentence and that the non-unanimous jury verdict constituted harmless error requiring reversal.
Hurst applies retroactively to Taylor because his sentence became final after Ring v. Arizona. The non-unanimous 10-2 jury recommendation violates Hurst and is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the court cannot determine that the jury unanimously found the aggravators sufficient or that aggravators outweighed mitigation.
[1] Hurst v. …
[2] A death sentence recommended by a jury vote of ten to two violates Hurst v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing constitutional error in sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor's death sentence was recommended by his penalty phase jury by a vote of ten to two. The sentence became final in 2004 after direct appeal. The …
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 Ring V. Arizona Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
John Calvin Taylor, II, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). We have jurisdiction.* See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
Taylor’s death sentence, which his penalty phase jury recommended by a vote of ten to two, became final in 2004. See Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003), cert. denied, Taylor v. Florida, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1605, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004). 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). *72Thus, Hurst applies retroactively to Taylor.
Because the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two, Taylor’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 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.
Hurst, 202 So.3d at 68 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)).
While the aggravators in this case are such that no reasonable juror would have failed to find their existence,1 based bn the jury’s ten-to-two recommendation for a sentence of death, we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a sentence of death. Nor can we “determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation.” Kopsho, 209 So.3d at 570. “We can only determine that the jury did not unanimously recommend a sentence of death.” Id. Therefore, because we cannot say that there is no reasonable possibility that the error did not contribute to the sentence, the Hurst error in Taylor’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 142, 174-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2218, 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017).
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted. We vacate the death sentence and remand to the circuit court 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.
LAWSON, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent.
concurring specially.
See Okafor v. State, 225 So.3d 768, 775-76, 2017 WL 2481266, at *6 (Fla. June 8, 2017) (Lawson, J., concurring specially).
LAWSON, J.,
concurring specially.
See Okafor v. State, 225 So. 3d 768, 775-76, 2017 WL 2481266, at *6 (Fla. June 8, 2017) (Lawson, J., concurring specially).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (17 total)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- 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)
- Florida v. Hurst., 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Ward v. Neal, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Boone v. Lorie Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2163 (U.S. 2017)
- Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016)
- Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003)