CHARLES WILLIAM FINNEY, 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.
Charles William Finney sought relief from his death sentence based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, which altered the constitutional requirements for imposing capital punishment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Finney's death sentence, which became final in 1996.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Finney's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1996, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Finney is not entitled to relief, and the circuit court's order denying his motion is affirmed.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction 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 Finney's sentence of death.”
The core holding establishing that Hurst v. Florida's protections do not extend to sentences that became final 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 intelligenceFinney was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. His sentence of death became final in 1996. Finn…
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 Charles William Finney’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Finney’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art, V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const’. '
Finney’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 604 (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 Fin-ney’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, Finney responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Finney’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude, that Fin-ney is. not, entitled. to relief. Finney, was *280sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 679 (Fla. 1995). Finney’s sentence of death became final in 1996. Finney v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Finney’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Finney’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Finney, 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, 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
-
Finney v. State, 260 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2018)….S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Finney responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), and Finney v. State , 235 So. 3d 279 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 197, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Finney's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that our pri…
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)
- Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1995)
- 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)