WILLIAM GREGORY THOMAS, 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.
William Gregory Thomas appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which required jury findings on aggravating circumstances in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Thomas's death sentence became final in 1997, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his sentence.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Thomas's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1997, prior to Hurst's decision. Therefore, Thomas is not entitled to relief, and the circuit court's denial of his motion is affirmed.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking to vacate a death sentence based on Hurst 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 Thomas's sentence of death.”
Establishes the Court's holding that Hurst v. Florida does not have retroactive application 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 intelligenceThomas was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Thomas's death sentence became final in 1997. Th…
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 William Gregory Thomas’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Thomas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Thomas’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 Thomas’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, Thomas responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Thomas’s response to the .order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Thomas is not entitled to relief. Thomas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Thomas v. State, 693 So.2d 951, 951 (Fla. 1997). Thomas’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Thomas v. Florida, 522 U.S. 985, 118 S.Ct. 449, 139 L.Ed(2d 385 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Thomas’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Thomas’s motion. ,
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Thomas, 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
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)
- Thomas v. State, 693 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1997)