WILLIAM EARL SWEET, 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 Earl Sweet appealed the circuit court's denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which addressed jury voting requirements in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sweet's 1994 death sentence.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Sweet's death sentence. Sweet is not entitled to relief under Hurst because his sentence became final in 1994, prior to the Hurst decision. The circuit court's denial of Sweet's Rule 3.851 motion is affirmed.
[1] The United States 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 defendant's final conviction.
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“Sweet was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two.”
Establishes the factual basis that Sweet's sentence was based on a jury vote that would be challenged under Hurst
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSweet was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Sweet's death sentence became final in 1994. Sweet fil…
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 William Earl Sweet’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Sweet’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Sweet’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 *647(Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Sweet’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, Sweet responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Sweet’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Sweet is not entitled to relief. Sweet was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Sweet v. State, 624 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 1993). Sweet’s sentence of death became final in 1994. Sweet v. Florida, 510 U.S. 1170, 114 S.Ct. 1206, 127 L.Ed.2d 553 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sweet’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Sweet’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Sweet, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument 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, — 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
-
Sweet v. State, 248 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 2018)…f under Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Sweet appealed the postconviction court's denial of that motion and, upon review, this Court affirmed. Sweet v. State , 234 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2018). In 2014, Sweet filed a successive pro se motion for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that Cofer recanted her trial testimony and an evidentiary hearing was warranted. This motion was stricken because Sweet was represented at…
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)
- 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)
- Sweet v. State, 624 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1993)
- Rojas-Gonzalez v. United States, 510 U.S. 1170 (U.S. 1994)