CARL PUIATTI, 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.
Carl Puiatti appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which invalidated Florida's capital sentencing scheme. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Hurst does not apply retroactively to Puiatti's death sentence, which became final in 1988.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Puiatti's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1988, before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Puiatti is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 is subject to review by the Florida Supreme Court.
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“Puiatti was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one.”
Establishes the factual basis for Puiatti's death sentence that became final in 1988
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePuiatti was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. His death sentence became final in 1988. Puiatt…
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Carl Puiatti’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Puiat-ti’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Puiatti’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 Puiatti’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, Puiatti responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Puiatti’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Puiatti is not entitled to relief. Puiatti was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Puiatti v. State, 495 So.2d 128, 130 (Fla. 1986). Puiatti’s sentence of death became final in 1988. Puiatti v. Florida, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 184, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Puiatti’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Puiatti’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Puiatti, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., recused.
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 (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)
- Thompson v. Louisiana, 488 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1988)
- 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)