MARK ALLEN DAVIS, 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.
Mark Davis appealed a circuit court's denial of a Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which held that jury recommendations in capital cases must be binding rather than advisory. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Davis's death sentence became final in 1994, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his case.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Davis's sentence because his death sentence became final in 1994, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Davis was not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The 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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Davis's sentence of death.”
The court's holding that the Hurst decision regarding jury recommendations in capital sentencing does 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 intelligenceDavis was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Davis's death sentence became final in 1994. Davi…
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 Mark Alen Davis’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Davis’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Davis’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 Davis’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). Ater this Court decided Hitchcock, Davis responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
Ater reviewing Davis’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Davis is not entitled to relief. Davis was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Davis v. State, 620 So.2d 152, 153 n.3 (Fla. 1993). Davis’s sentence of death became final in 1994. Davis v. Florida, 510 U.S. 1170, 114 S.Ct. 1205, 127 L.Ed.2d 552 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Davis’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Davis’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Davis, 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)
- Davis v. State, 620 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1993)