CURTIS WINDOM, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Windom appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed capital sentencing procedures. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Windom's death sentences that became final in 1995.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Windom's death sentences because his sentences became final in 1995, well before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Windom is not entitled to post-conviction relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking application of Hurst v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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 Windom's sentences of death.”
States the core holding that Hurst v. Florida's new sentencing requirements do not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWindom was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each count following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death…
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 Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Curtis Windom’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Windom’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Windom’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 Windom’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, Windom responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Windom’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Windom is not entitled to relief. Windom was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each count following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Windom v. State, 656 So.2d 432, 435 (Fla. 1995). Windom’s sentences of death became final in 1995. Windom v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1012, 116 S.Ct. 571, 133 L.Ed.2d 495 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Windom’s sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Windom’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Windom, 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.
*558PARIENTE, 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. 613, 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. 613, 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
Cited By
-
Windom v. State, 416 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 2025)
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)
- Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1995)