STEVEN RICHARD TAYLOR, 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.
Steven Richard Taylor sought post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, arguing his death sentence violated the Sixth Amendment because the jury's recommendation was not unanimous. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Taylor's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1994, before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Taylor is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking application of a new Supreme Court precedent will be denied if the sentence became final before the precedent was decided.
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 Taylor's sentence of death.”
Establishes the central holding that Hurst's jury unanimity requirement does not retroactively apply to sentences finalized before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of 10-2. Taylor's death sentence became final in 1994. Taylor file…
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 Capital Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Steven Richard Taylor’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Taylor’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Taylor’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 Taylor’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, Taylor responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Taylor’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Taylor is not entitled to relief. Taylor was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Taylor v. State, 630 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1993). Taylor’s sentence of death became final in 1994. Taylor v. Florida, 513 U.S. 832, 115 S.Ct. 107, 130 L.Ed.2d 54 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Taylor’s sentence of death. See *650Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Taylor’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Taylor, 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, 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
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 260 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 2018)…S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017), Taylor filed his first successive motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and we affirmed the postconviction court's denial of relief. Taylor v. State (Taylor III ), 234 So. 3d 649, 650 (Fla. 2018). Taylor then filed this second successive motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.851, alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of an exculpatory affidavit of a witness and new DNA evidence. Without conducting a c…1 / 2
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)
- Taylor v. State, 630 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1993)