DONALD DAVID DILLBECK, 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.
Donald David Dillbeck appealed a circuit court's denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, which required jury findings on aggravating factors in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Dillbeck's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1995, before Hurst was decided. Accordingly, Dillbeck was not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking application of a new Supreme Court ruling will be denied if the ruling is not retroactive to the movant's final conviction and…
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 Dillbeck's sentence of death.”
The holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDillbeck was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. His death sentence became final in 1995. Dillb…
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 Jury Recommendation For Death Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Donald David Dill-beck’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Dillbeck’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Dillbeck’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 Dill-beck’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, Dillbeck responded to this Court’s order to show *559cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Dillbeck’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Dillbeck is not entitled to relief. Dill-beck was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Dillbeck v. State, 643 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 1994). Dillbeek’s sentence of death became final in 1995. Dillbeck v. Florida, 514 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 1371, 131 L.Ed.2d 226 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Dillbeck’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm-the denial of Dillbeck’s motion.
The Court having, carefully considered all arguments raised by Dillbeck, 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.
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. 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
Cited By
-
Dillbeck v. State of Fla. & Donald David Dillbeck v. Ricky D. Dixon, 357 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 2023)
-
Dillbeck v. State (Fla. 2020)
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)
- Dillbeck v. State, 643 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1994)