GARY LAWRENCE, 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.
Gary Lawrence appealed a circuit court's denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed capital sentencing procedures. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Lawrence's death sentence became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his sentence.
Lawrence is not entitled to relief because Hurst does not apply retroactively to his death sentence, which became final in 1998, well before Hurst was decided. The circuit court's order denying his motion is affirmed.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 will be denied when the controlling precedent dictates that the relief sough…
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 Lawrence's sentence of death.”
Establishes the core holding that the new Hurst rule does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Lawrence was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. His death sentence became final in 1998. …
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 Gary Lawrence's appeal of the circuit court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Lawrence'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 Lawrence'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, Lawrence responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Lawrence's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Lawrence is not entitled to relief. Lawrence was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three.
*241Lawrence v. State, 698 So.2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 1997). His sentence of death became final in 1998. Lawrence v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1080, 118 S.Ct. 863, 139 L.Ed.2d 761 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lawrence's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lawrence's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lawrence, 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, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (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
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. State (Fla. 2020)
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)
- Lawrence v. State, 698 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1997)