HAROLD GENE LUCAS, 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.
Harold Gene Lucas appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed the constitutional requirements for imposing capital punishment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lucas's death sentence, which became final in 1993.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Lucas's death sentence because it became final in 1993, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Lucas is not entitled to relief under the new constitutional standard.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief 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 Lucas's sentence of death”
The core holding: Hurst's new constitutional requirements for capital sentencing do not apply 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 intelligenceLucas was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. His death sentence became final in 1993. Lucas fi…
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Harold Gene Lucas’s appeal of the circuit court’s-order denying Lucas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Lucas’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 Lucas’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, Lucas responded to this -Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Lucas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lucas is not entitled to relief. Lucas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. See Lucas v. State, 613 So.2d 408, 409 (Fla. 1992).1 Lucas’s sentence of death became final in 1993. Lucas v. Florida, 510 U.S. 845, 114 S.Ct. 136, 126 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lucas’s sentence of death; See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lucas’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lucas, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument will be stricken. It is so ordered;
LABARGA, C.J.,and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ„ concur.
PARIENTE, J,, concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY,, JJ'., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., recused.
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 ex*649pressed 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 ex pressed 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)
- 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)
- Lucas v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 682 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2012)
- Lucas v. State, 613 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1992)