GUY R. GAMBLE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 2018-01-29
No. SC17-1101
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.
235 So. 3d 288 Florida Supreme Court (2018)

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.

Synopsis

Gamble appealed a circuit court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which required jury findings for capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gamble's death sentence, which became final in 1996.


Holding

Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gamble's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1996, prior to the Hurst decision. Accordingly, the circuit court's denial of Gamble's motion was affirmed.


Headnotes

[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …

[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking to apply 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

Key Quotes

“Gamble was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two.”

Establishes the underlying capital sentence at issue and the jury's recommendation margin.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Gamble was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Gamble's death sentence became final in 1996. Gamble …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Guy R. Gamble’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Gamble’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Gamble’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 *289L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Gamble’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Gamble responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Gamble’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Gamble is not entitled to relief. Gamble was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Gamble v. State, 659 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 1995). Gamble’s sentence of death became final in 1996. Gamble v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1122, 116 S.Ct. 933, 133 L.Ed.2d 860 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gamble’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gamble’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gamble, 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.

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.

Concurrence
PARIENTE, J.,

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

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw