KENNETH ALLEN STEWART, 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.
Kenneth Allen Stewart sought relief from his death sentence under Hurst v. Florida, arguing that the decision should apply retroactively to his case. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the decision was issued.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Stewart's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1992, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Stewart is not entitled to relief under Hurst or the Court's decision in Hurst v. State.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking to vacate a death sentence 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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stewart's sentence of death.”
The Court's core holding that the Hurst decision does not apply to Stewart's case because his sentence became final prior to Hurst being decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. His death sentence became final in 1992. Stewart fil…
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 Kenneth Allen Stewart’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Stewart’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Stewart’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 Stewart’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, Stewart responded tu this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.’
After reviewing Stewart’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Stewart is not entitled to relief. Stewart was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Stewart v. State, 588 So.2d 972, 973 (Fla. 1991); Stewart v. State, 549 So.2d 171, 172 (Fla. 1989), His sentence of death became final in 1992. Stewart v. Florida, 503 U.S. 976, 112 S.Ct. 1599, 118 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stewart’s seiitence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Stewart’s motion.
The Court having, carefully considered all arguments raised by Stewart, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
,PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., recused.
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.
[*800] 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 (13 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)
- Stewart v. State, 549 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1989)