GLEN EDWARD ROGERS, 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.
Glen Edward Rogers appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed capital sentencing procedures. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Rogers' death sentence became final in 2001, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his case.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rogers' death sentence. Because Rogers' sentence became final in 2001, before Hurst was decided, he is not entitled to relief under the new capital sentencing requirements established by 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“Rogers was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death, and his sentence of death became final in 2001.”
Establishes the critical factual predicate for the retroactivity analysis—that the sentence 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 intelligenceRogers was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 2001. Rogers filed a motion fo…
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 Glen Edward Rogers’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Rogers’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has- jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Rogers’ 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 Rogers’ 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, Rogers responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
. After reviewing Rogers’ response to the order to show.cause,'as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Rogers is not entitled to-relief. Rogers was sentenced to death following a jury’s unan*307imous recommendation for death, and his sentence of death became final in 2001. Rogers v. State, 783 So.2d 980, 987 (Fla. 2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rogers’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Rogers’ motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Rogers, 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
Cited By
-
Rogers v. State, 327 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 2021)…y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:07-CV-1365-T-30TGW, 2010 WL 668261 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2010) (denying federal habeas relief); Rogers v. State, 97 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 2012) (affirming summary denial of first successive postconviction motion); Rogers v. State, 235 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 2018) (affirming summary denial of second successive postconviction motion). Rogers has now filed his third successive postconviction motion, the denial of which is at issue in this appeal. In the motion, Rogers raised a single claim of newly…
-
Rogers v. State (Fla. 2025)
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Rogers v. State, 783 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 2001)