JACK R. SLINEY, 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.
Jack R. Sliney appealed the denial of his motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, seeking to invoke the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida regarding jury sentencing in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sliney's death sentence because it became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sliney's death sentence because the sentence became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Sliney is not entitled to relief under the new constitutional rule established in Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A defendant is not entitled to relief under 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 Sliney's sentence of death.”
The Court's holding that the constitutional rule in Hurst v. Florida does not have retroactive application to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSliney was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. His death sentence became final in 1998. He subs…
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 Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Jack R. Sliney’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Sliney’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule, of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Sliney’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 Sli-ney’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, Sliney responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Sliney’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Sli-ney is not entitled to relief. Sliney was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Sliney v. State, 699 So.2d 662, 667 (Ela. 1997). His sentence of death became final in 1998. Sliney v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1129, 118 S.Ct. 1079, 140 L.Ed.2d 137 (1998). Thus,-Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sliney’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the- denial of .Sliney’s motion.
*311The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Sliney, 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. 613, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitch-coek.
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. 613, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitch-coek.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sliney v. State (Fla. 2023)
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)
- Sliney v. State, 699 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1997)