DANIEL BURNS, JR., 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.
Daniel Burns, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which established that a jury must unanimously recommend a death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Burns' death sentence became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided, and Hurst does not apply retroactively to his case.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Burns' death sentence. Because Burns' sentence became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided, he is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure will be denied if the defendant's sentence became final before the rule was an…
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“Burns was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death.”
Establishes that Burns received a jury recommendation for death, which distinguishes his case from the circumstances addressed in Hurst.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Burns was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 1998. Burns filed a moti…
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 Retroactivity Of Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for reyiew Daniel Burns, Jr.’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Burns’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Burns’ 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 Burns’ appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3.d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 138 act. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Burns responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Burns’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Burns is not entitled to relief. Burns was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Burns v. State, 699 So.2d 646, 652 (Fla. 1997). Burns’ sentence of. death became final in 1998. Burns v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1121, 118 S.Ct. 1063, 140 L.Ed.2d 123 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Burns’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Burns’ motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Burns, 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 recognise 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 recognise 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)
- Burns v. State, 699 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)