HARRY FRANKLIN PHILLIPS, 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.
Harry Franklin Phillips appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on the Hurst v. Florida decision regarding jury sentencing in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Phillips' death sentence, which became final in 1998.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Phillips' sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1998, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Phillips is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 is properly denied when the underlying legal precedent upon which the motion…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Phillips was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five.”
Establishes the factual basis for Phillips' 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 intelligencePhillips was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation by a vote of seven to five. His death sentence became final in 1998. He filed a moti…
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 Harry Franklin Phillips’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Phillips’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Phillips’ 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 Phillips’ 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, Phillips responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Phillips’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Phillips is not entitled to relief. Phillips was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation. for death by a vote of seven to five. Phillips v. State, 705 So.2d 1320, 1321 (Fla. 1997). Phillips’ sentence of death became final in 1998. Phillips v. Florida, 525 U.S. 880, 119 S.Ct. 187, 142 L.Ed.2d 152 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Phillips’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Phillips’ motion.
The .Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Phillips, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reárgument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, 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
-
Phillips v. State, 299 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 2020)
Authorities 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)
- Phillips v. State, 705 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1997)