CURTIS W. BEASLEY, 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.
Curtis Beasley appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which held that the jury must make findings necessary for a death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Beasley's death sentence became final in 2001, before Hurst, and Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Beasley's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 2001, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Beasley is not entitled to relief, and the circuit court's order denying his motion was properly entered.
[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“Beasley was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two, and his sentence of death became final in 2001.”
Establishes the temporal finality of Beasley's sentence, which is critical to the retroactivity analysis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeasley was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. His sentence of death became final in 2001. He filed…
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 Curtis W. Beasley’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Beasley’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court' has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Beasley’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 Beasley’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, Beasley responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Beasley’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Beasley is not entitled to relief. Beasley was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two, and his sentence of death became final in 2001. Beasley v. State, 774 So.2d 649, 657 (Fla. 2000). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Beasley’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Beasley’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Beasley, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
*554LABARGA, 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. Howevei', 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. Howevei', 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
-
Beasley v. State (Fla. 2026)
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000)
- Loud v. Lorie Davis, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Allen v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)