EMANUEL JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. EMANUEL JOHNSON, 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.
Emanuel Johnson appealed the denial of his motions seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, which established new jury requirements for capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnson's death sentences, which became final in 1996.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnson's death sentences because both sentences became final in 1996, before the Hurst decision. Accordingly, Johnson is not entitled to relief, and the denial of his motions is affirmed.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for rehearing that merely reargues issues previously decided by the court will be stricken.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 Johnson's sentences of death.”
The core holding establishing that the Hurst decision does not retroactively apply to Johnson's 1996 death sentences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was sentenced to death for two murders: Iris White (based on an 8-4 jury recommendation) and Jackie McCahon (based on a 10-2 jury recommendati…
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 Application cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Emanuel Johnson's appeals of the circuit court's order denying his motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Johnson's motions 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 Johnson's appeals 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, Johnson responded to this Court's orders to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in his cases.
After reviewing Johnson's responses to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Johnson is not entitled to relief. Johnson was sentenced to death for the murder of Iris White following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 641 (Fla. 1995). Johnson was also sentenced to death for the murder of Jackie McCahon following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648, 652 (Fla. 1995). Both of Johnson's sentences of death became final in 1996.
*234Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159, 116 S.Ct. 1550, 1550, 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996) ; Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159, 116 S.Ct. 1550, 1551, 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnson's sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Johnson's motions.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Johnson, 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.
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)
- Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1995)
- Loud v. Lorie Davis, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Allen v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)