RICHARD WALLACE RHODES, 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.
Richard Wallace Rhodes appealed the denial of his motion for relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which addressed jury voting requirements in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rhodes' death sentence, which became final in 1994.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rhodes' sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1994, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Rhodes is not entitled to relief.
[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 claim is foreclosed by precedent established in Hitchcock 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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rhodes' sentence of death.”
The Court's holding establishing that the new rule from Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRhodes was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. His death sentence became final in 1994. Rhodes 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. Florida cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Richard Wallace Rhodes’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Rhodes’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Rhodes’ 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 *555Rhodes’ 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, Rhodes responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Rhodes’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Rhodes is not entitled to relief. Rhodes was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Rhodes v. State, 638 So.2d 920, 923 (Fla. 1994). Rhodes’ sentence of death became final in 1994. Rhodes v. Florida, 513 U.S. 1046, 115 S.Ct. 642, 130 L.Ed.2d 547 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rhodes’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Rhodes’ motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Rhodes, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument 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 Hitch-eock.
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 Hitch-eock.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhodes v. State (Fla. 2026)
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)
- In re Florida Evidence Code, 638 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1993)