THOMAS LEE GUDINAS, 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.
Thomas Lee Gudinas appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling requiring jury findings on aggravating factors should apply retroactively to his 1997 death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gudinas's 1997 death sentence because it became final before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Gudinas is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 seeking relief based on Hurst v. …
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the timing of Gudinas's sentence and when it became final, which is critical to the retroactivity analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGudinas was sentenced to death in 1997 following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. His death sentence became final in 1997. G…
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. State cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Thomas Lee Gudi-nas’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Gudinas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Gudinas’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 Gu-dinas’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, Gudinas responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Gudinas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Gudinas is not entitled to relief. Gudi-nas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953, 959 (Fla. 1997). His sentence of death became final in 1997. Gudinas v. Florida, 522 U.S. 936, 118 S.Ct. 345, 139 L.Ed.2d 267 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gudinas’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gudi-nas’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gudinas, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument 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
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)
- Gudinas v. State, 693 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1997)
- Loud v. Lorie Davis, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Allen v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)