MICHAEL ALLEN GRIFFIN, 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.
Michael Allen Griffin appealed the denial of his motion for relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which held that jury unanimity is required for capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Griffin's death sentence, which became final in 1995.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Griffin's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1995, before the Hurst decision was issued. Therefore, Griffin is not entitled to relief under Hurst and the circuit court's denial of his motion was properly affirmed.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on a change in law is properly denied when that change in law is not retroactive to the defendant's sentence.
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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Griffin's sentence of death.”
The Court's holding that the Hurst retroactivity rule bars Griffin's claim because his sentence became final in 1995, 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 intelligenceGriffin was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. His death sentence became final in 1995. Griffin f…
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 Death Penalty Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Michael Allen Griffin's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Griffin's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Griffin'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 Griffin'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, Griffin responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
*238After reviewing Griffin's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Griffin is not entitled to relief. Griffin was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla. 1994). Griffin's sentence of death became final in 1995. Griffin v. Florida, 514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Griffin's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Griffin's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Griffin, 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.
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 (11 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)
- Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994)
- 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)