ERIC SCOTT BRANCH, 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.
Eric Scott Branch appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury—not a judge—to make the finding of aggravating circumstances necessary to impose the death penalty. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Branch's death sentence became final in 1997, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his case.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Branch's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1997, before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Branch is not entitled to post-conviction 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 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“Branch was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Branch v. State, 685 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1996). Branch's sentence of death became final in 1997.”
Establishes that Branch's sentence was finalized before Hurst was decided, which is the critical fact for the retroactivity analysis.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBranch was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. His sentence of death became final in 1997. Branch …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Eric Scott Branch’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Branch’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Branch’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 Branch’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, Branch responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Branch’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in repily, we conclude that Branch, is not entitled to relief. Branch was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Branch v. State, 685 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1996). Branch’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Branch v. Florida, 520 U.S. 1218, 117 S.Ct. 1709, 137 L.Ed.2d 833 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Branch’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Branch’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Branch, we caution that any rehearing motion containing *550reargument 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
-
Branch v. State, 236 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 2018)…Branch v. State (Branch V ), No. SC15-1869, 2016 WL 4182823 (Fla. Aug. 8, 2016). On January 22, 2018, we affirmed the circuit court's denial of Branch's first successive motion for postconviction relief. Branch v. State (Branch VI ), No. SC17-1509, 234 So. 3d 548, 2018 WL 495024 (Fla. Jan. 22, 2018). On January 19, 2018, Governor Rick Scott signed a death warrant for Branch [*984] and scheduled his execution for February 22, 2018. On January 29, 2018, Branch filed his second successive motion for postconvic…
Authorities Cited (11 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)
- Branch v. State, 685 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1996)