IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE, 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.
Ian Deco Lightbourne appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which established that Florida's death penalty scheme violated the Sixth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Lightbourne's death sentence became final in 1984, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his case.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lightbourne's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1984, before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Lightbourne is not entitled to post-conviction relief, and the circuit court's order denying his motion is affirmed.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 seeking relief based on Hurst v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Lightbourne was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by an unrecorded vote.”
Establishes the procedural background of Lightbourne's death sentence and the absence of a recorded jury vote
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLightbourne was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by an unrecorded vote. His death sentence became final in 1984. Lightbo…
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 Hurst V. Florida cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Ian Deco Lightb-ourne’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Lightbourne’s motion filed pursuant to Florida.Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Lightbourne’s motion sought reliéf 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 Lightbourne’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, Lightbourne responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Lightbourne’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lightbourne is not entitled to relief. Lightbourne was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by an unrecorded vote. See Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 391 (Fla. 1983).1 Lightbourne’s sentence of death became final in 1984. Lightbourne v. Florida, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lightbourne’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lightb-ourne’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lightbourne, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument 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
-
Lightbourne v. State, 252 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2018)…emand 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). Lightbourne responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why this Court's decisions in Lightbourne v. State , 235 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed , No. 18-5012 (U.S. June 28, 2018), and Hitchcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing L…
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)
- Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)
- 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)