JOHN CHRISTOPHER MARQUARD, 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.
John Christopher Marquard appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, seeking to apply the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida to his death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Marquard's sentence because it became final in 1995.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Marquard's death sentence because the sentence became final in 1995, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Marquard is not entitled to relief.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on Hurst v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Marquard was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death.”
Establishes the procedural posture and method of sentencing in Marquard's case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarquard was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 1995. Marquard filed a motio…
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 Death Penalty Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review John Christopher Marquard’s appeal \of the circuit court’s order denying Marquard’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Marquard’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 Marquard’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 138 act. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Marquard responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Marquard’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Marquard, is not entitled to relief, Marquard was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Marquard v. State, 641 So.2d 54, 56 (Fla. 1994). Marquard’s sentence of death became final in 1995. Marquard v. Florida, 513 U.S. 1132, 115 S.Ct. 946, 130 L.Ed.2d 890 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively .fo Marquard’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mar-quard’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Marquard, 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, *562I 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)
- Marquard v. State, 641 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1994)