ANDREW RICHARD ALLRED, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 2017-11-16
No. SC17-846
LABARGA,C.J.,.and PARIENTE, • LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
230 So. 3d 412 Florida Supreme Court (2017) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 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

Andrew Richard Allred, a death row inmate, appealed the circuit court's summary denial of his first successive motion for postconviction relief raising claims under Hurst v. Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that a defendant who validly waived the right to a jury penalty phase cannot later invoke Hurst to undermine that waiver.


Holding

A defendant cannot subvert the right to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in law has fundamentally undermined his sentence. Allred, having validly waived his right to a penalty phase jury, cannot invoke Hurst to challenge his death sentence.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant cannot seek relief based on a subsequent change in law after waiving the right to a penalty phase jury.

[2] A successive postconviction motion may be summarily denied if it fails to present a claim that compels departure from established precedent.

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

Key Quotes

“a defendant "cannot subvert the right to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence."”

Establishes the core legal principle preventing defendants from using waiver strategy to later invoke new constitutional developments in capital sentencing law

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In 2008, Allred pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two first-degree premeditated murders. Allred waived his right to a jury in the penalty phase, …

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.

Andrew Richard Allred, a prisoner under sentences of death, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily denying his first successive motion for postcohvictiori relief, which was filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

In 2008, Allred pleaded -guilty to and was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murders of Michael Ruschak and Tiffany Barwick. Allred subsequently waived his right to a jury in the penalty *413phase. Following the penalty phase bench trial and a Spencer1 hearing, the trial court sentenced Allred to death for each of the murders. We affirmed Allred’s convictions and sentences of death on direct appeal. Allred v. State, 55 So.3d 1267 (Fla. 2010). We also upheld the denial of his initial motion for po'stconviction relief. Allred v. State, 186 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2016).

In January 2017, Allred filed his current first successive postconviction motion, in which he .raised numerous claims, in light of 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). In April 2017, the circuit court entered an order summarily denying Allred’s successive postconviction motion. This appeal followed. While All-red’s postconviction case was pending in this Court, we directed the parties to-file briefs addressing why the circuit court’s order should not be affirmed based on this Court’s precedent in Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672, 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017).

In Mullens, this Court held that a defendant “capnot subvert the right, to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence.” Mullens, 197 So.3d at 40. This Court has consistently relied on Mul-lens to deny Hurst relief to defendants that have waived the right to a penalty phase jury. See, e.g., Dessaure v. State, No. SC17-1075, 230 So.3d 411, 2017 WL 5494384 (slip op. issued Fla. Nov. 16, 2017); Twilegar v. State, No. SC17-839, 228 So.3d 550, 2017 WL 4985519 (Fla. Nov. 2, 2017); Covington v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S787, 2017 WL 3764377, at *14 (Fla. Aug. 31, 2017); Knight v. State, 211 So.3d 1, 5 n.2 (Fla. 2016); Robertson v. State, No. SC16-1297, 2016 WL 7043020, at *1 n.1 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2016); Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 177, 212 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2218, 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017); Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016). Allred is among those defendants who validly waived the right to a penalty phase jury, and his arguments dó not compel departing from our precedent.

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order summarily denying Allred’s first successive motion for postconviction relief. - =

It is so ordered.

LABARGA,C.J.,.and PARIENTE, • LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lynch v. State, 254 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 2018)
    …owingly and voluntarily waives his right to a penalty phase jury cannot later claim relief under Hurst and its progeny. Hutchinson v. State , 243 So. 3d 880, 883 (Fla. 2018) ; Rodgers v. State , 242 So. 3d 276, 276-77 (Fla. 2018) ; Allred v. State , 230 So. 3d 412, 413 (Fla. 2017) ; Deassure v. State , 230 So. 3d 411, 412 (Fla. 2017) ; Twilegar v. State , 228 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) ; Covington v. State , 228 So. 3d 49, 69 (Fla. 2017) ; Wright v. State , 213 So. 3d 881, 903 (Fla.), vacated on other ground…
  • Brant v. State (Fla. 2019)

Authorities Cited (20 total)

View all 20 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw