JOSHUA D. NELSON, 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.
Joshua Nelson appealed a circuit court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Hurst v. Florida, which requires jury findings on aggravating circumstances in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Nelson's death sentence, which became final in 2000, well before Hurst was decided in 2016.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Nelson's death sentence because his sentence became final in 2000. Therefore, Nelson is not entitled to post-conviction 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 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“Nelson was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death [...] His sentence of death became final in 2000 [...] Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Nelson's sentence of death.”
Establishes the key holding that retroactivity depends on when the sentence became final, not when the constitutional ruling was issued.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoshua Nelson was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 2000. Nelson filed a po…
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 Hitchcock V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Joshua D. Nelson’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Nelson’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule ■ of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Nelson’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 Nelson’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, Nelson responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Nelson’s' response to the order to show cause, as wel as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Nelson is not entitled to relief. Nelson was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Nelson v. State, 748 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla. 1999). His sentence of death became final in 2000. Nelson v. Florida, 528 U.S. 1123, 120 S.Ct. 950, 145 L.Ed.2d 825 (2000). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Nelson’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Nelson’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Nelson, 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.
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)
- Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999)