MICHAEL BERNARD BELL, 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.
Michael Bernard Bell sought post-conviction relief based on the Hurst v. Florida ruling that requires a jury to unanimously recommend death before a judge may impose a capital sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bell's death sentences, which became final in 1998.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bell's sentences of death because they became final in 1998, before the Hurst decision was issued in 2016.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on a change in law is properly denied if the change in law does not apply retroactively to the movant's sentence.
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 Bell's sentences of death.”
The core holding establishing that the Hurst decision requiring jury unanimity in capital sentencing does not apply retroactively to cases with final sentences from before 2016.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury convicted Bell of two counts of first-degree murder and unanimously recommended death for both murders. The trial court sentenced Bell to death…
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 Michael Bernard Bell’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Bell’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art; V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. ,
Bell’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 Bell’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, Bell responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Bell’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Bell is not entitled to relief, A jury convicted Bell of two counts of first-degree murder and unanimously recommended a sentence of death for both murders. Bell v. State, 699 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1997). Following the jury’s recommendations, the trial court sentenced Bell to- death on both counts. Id. at 976.- Bell’s sentences of death became final in 1998. Bell v. Florida. 522 U.S. 1123, 118 S.Ct. 1067, 140 L.Ed.2d 127 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bell’s sentences of death. See Hitch*288cock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Bell’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Bell, 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
-
Bell v. State, 421 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2025)…ible error. See Bell, 965 So. 2d at 75. - 6 - ---PAGE 6--- State, 235 So. 3d 287, 287-88 (Fla. 2018) (concluding that Hurst⁴ did not apply retroactively to Bell's sentences of death and affirming the denial of postconviction relief); Bell v. State, 284 So. 3d 400, 401-02 (Fla. 2019) (affirming, on grounds of untimeliness and a procedural bar, the denial of Bell's successive ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel improperly injected racial animus into the guilt and penalty phases of his…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)
- Bell v. State, 699 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1997)