JEFFREY LEE ATWATER, 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.
Jeffrey Lee Atwater appealed a circuit court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida regarding jury sentencing in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Hurst does not apply retroactively to Atwater's death sentence, which became final in 1994.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Atwater's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1994, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Atwater 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 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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Atwater's sentence of death.”
Establishes the core holding that the Hurst decision does not have retroactive application to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtwater was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. His death sentence became final in 1994. Atwate…
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 Jury Sentencing Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Jeffrey Lee Atwa-ter’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Atwater’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Atwater’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. *551denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed At-water’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, Atwater responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Atwater’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Atwater is not entitled to relief. Atwa-ter was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Atwater v. State, 626 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1993), Atwater’s sentence of death became final in 1994. Atwater v. Florida, 511 U.S. 1046, 114 S.Ct. 1578, 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to At-water’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Atwater’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Atwater, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument 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
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)
- Atwater v. State, 626 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1993)