LORAN COLE, 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.
Loran Cole appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which held that jury recommendations are necessary in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Cole's death sentence became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided, and Hurst does not apply retroactively to Cole's case.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Cole's death sentence because the sentence became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Cole is not entitled to post-conviction relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 is properly denied when the controlling precedent dictates that the relief s…
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“Hurst does not apply retroactively to Cole's sentence of death”
The court's central holding establishing that the Hurst requirement for jury recommendations does not apply to sentences finalized before the decision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCole was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death in a prior conviction (Cole v. State, 701 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1997)). C…
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 Loran Cole’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Cole’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Cole’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 Cole’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 138 S.Ct. 513, — L.Ed.2d — (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Cole responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Cole’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Cole is not entitled to relief. Cole was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 849 (Fla. 1997), Cole’s sentence of death became final in 1998. Cole v. Florida, 523 U.S. 1051, 118 S.Ct. 1370, 140 L.Ed.2d 519 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Cole’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Cole’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered ‘all arguments raised by Cole, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
*646LABARGA, 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, — L.Ed.2d — (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, — L.Ed.2d — (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
-
Loran Cole v. State (Fla. 2024)
Authorities Cited (11 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)
- Loran Cole v. State, 701 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1997)
- 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)
- Cole v. Florida, 523 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1998)