ROBERT R. GORDON, 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.
Robert R. Gordon appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.861, seeking relief based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gordon's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1998.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gordon's sentence of death. Therefore, Gordon is not entitled to relief, and the circuit court's denial of his motion was proper.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking to apply 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“Gordon was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three, and his sentence became final in 1998.”
Establishes the key factual predicate that Gordon's sentence finality date is 1997 (note: opinion states 1998 in one place and 1997 in another), which is critical to determining Hurst's retroactive application.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGordon was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. His sentence became final in 1997. Gordon filed …
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 Robert R, Gordon’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Gordon’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.861. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla; Const.
Gordon’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 604 (2016), and our, decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40. (Fla. 2016), cert. *312denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Gordon’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, Gordon responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Gordon’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Gordon is not entitled to relief. Gordon was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three, and his sentence became final in 1998. Gordon v. State, 704 So.2d 107, 110 (Fla. 1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gordon’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gordon’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gordon, 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
- 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)
- Gordon v. State, 704 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1997)