CHARLES KENNETH FOSTER, 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.
Foster appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed the constitutional requirements for capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Foster's capital sentence, which became final in 1995. Therefore, Foster is not entitled to relief based on Hurst.
[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 Foster's sentence of death.”
This quote establishes the central holding that Hurst's constitutional requirements do not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Kenneth Foster was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Foster's death sentence became fin…
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 Charles Kenneth Foster’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Foster’s motion filed, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has .jurisdiction. See. art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.,
Foster’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 Foster’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 203.7), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Foster responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Foster’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we Conclude that Foster is not entitled to relief. Foster- was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Foster v. State, 654 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 1995). Foster’s sentence of death became final in 1995. Foster v. Florida, 516 U.S. 920, 116 S.Ct. 314, 133 L.Ed.2d 217 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Foster’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Foster’s- motion.
The-Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Foster, 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.
[*292] 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)
- Foster v. State, 654 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1995)