MELVIN TROTTER, 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.
Melvin Trotter appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, which established that the death penalty cannot be imposed without a jury finding of necessary aggravating factors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the decision.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Trotter's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1997, before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Trotter is not entitled to relief.
[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 subject to review by the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 Trotter's sentence of death.”
The Court's holding that Hurst v. Florida's protections do not retroactively apply 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 intelligenceMelvin Trotter was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Trotter's death sentence became final in 1…
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 Melvin Trotter’s appear of the circuit court’s order denying Trotter’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
*285Trotter’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 Trotter’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, Trotter responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Trotter’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Trotter is not entitled to relief. Trotter was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Trotter v. State, 690 So.2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1996). Trotter’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Trotter v. Florida, 522 U.S. 876, 118 S.Ct. 197, 139 L.Ed.2d 134 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Trotter’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Trotter’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Trotter, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument 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
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)
- Trotter v. State, 690 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1996)