PAUL ALFRED BROWN, 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.
Paul Alfred Brown appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief seeking application of Hurst v. Florida's requirement for jury involvement in death sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Brown's death sentence, which became final in 1990.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Brown's death sentence because the sentence became final in 1990, prior to the Hurst decision. Accordingly, Brown is not entitled to post-conviction relief.
[1] The United States 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“Brown was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five”
Establishes the factual basis for Brown's death sentence and the jury's role in the recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation by a vote of seven to five. His death sentence became final in 1990. Brown filed a motion…
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Paul Alfred Brown’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Brown’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See ■ art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Brown’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 Brown’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, Brown responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Brown’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Brown is not entitled to relief. Brown was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five, Brown v. State, 565 So.2d 304, 308 (Fla. 1990). Brown’s sentence of death became final in 1990. Brown v. Florida, 498 U.S. 992, 111 S.Ct. 537, 112 L.Ed.2d 547 (1990). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Brown’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Brown’s motion.
" The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Brown, 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
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)
- Brown v. State, 565 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1990)