MARVIN BURNETT JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jones appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, arguing his death sentence should be vacated because the jury's recommendation was not unanimous. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones because his death sentence became final in 1997, before Hurst was decided.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones's death sentence because it became final in 1997, long before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Jones is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on 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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones's sentence of death.”
Statement of the court's holding that retroactivity does not extend to Jones's case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Jones's death sentence became final in 1997. Jone…
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. State cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Marvin Burnett Jones’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Jones’s motion filed .pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Jones’s motion sought 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 Jones’s appeal 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, Jones responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Jones’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Jones is not entitled to relief. Jones was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Jones v. State, 690 So.2d 568, 569-70 (Fla. 1996). Jones’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Jones v. Florida, 522 U.S. 880, 118 S.Ct. 205, 139 L.Ed.2d 141 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial' of Jones’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jones, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
*546LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
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.
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
-
Heath v. State of Fla. & Ronald Palmer Heath v. Sec'y, 426 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2026)…n proceeding or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” “[R]ecords requests under Rule 3.852(i) must ‘show how the requested records relate to a colorable claim for postconviction relief . . . .' " Jones v. State, 419 So. 3d 619, 628 (Fla.) (quoting Dailey v. State, 283 So. 3d 782, 792 (Fla. 2019)), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 79 (2025). And “[w]here a defendant cannot demonstrate that he or she is entitled to relief on a claim or that records are relevant or may reasonably le…
-
Kearse v. State (Fla. 2026)…alls v. State*, 423 So. 3d 865, 876 (Fla.) (“Because Walls' habeas petition seeks only to relitigate an issue that was previously decided, we deny the petition.”), *cert. denied*, No. 25- 6357, 2025 WL 3674295 (U.S. Dec. 18, 2025); *Jones v. State*, 419 So. 3d 619, 629 (Fla.) (denying habeas petition raising intellectual disability claim because it was already litigated), *cert. denied*, 146 S. Ct. 79 (2025); *Knight v. State*, 923 So. 2d 387, 395 (Fla. 2005) ("[C]laims [that] were raised in [a] postconvictio…
-
James v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Jones v. State, 690 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1996)