JAMES D. FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. JAMES D. FORD, PETITIONER, V. JULIE L. JONES, ETC., RESPONDENT.
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.
James Ford appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Hurst v. Florida, arguing his death sentences should be vacated. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Ford's sentences that became final in 2002.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Ford's sentences of death because they became final on May 28, 2002, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Ford is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on Hurst v. …
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 Ford's sentences of death.”
This is the holding regarding the retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida to Ford's death sentences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord's jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended death sentences by an 11-1 vote. The trial court imposed death sente…
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
*905James D. Ford appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.
Ford seeks 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 Ford's appeal and consideration of his habeas petition 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, Ford responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both cases.
After reviewing Ford's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Ford is not entitled to relief. Ford's jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended a sentence of death for both murders by a vote of eleven to one. Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1126 (Fla. 2001). Following the jury's recommendations, the trial court sentenced Ford to death on both counts. Id. Ford's sentences of death became final on May 28, 2002. Ford v. Florida, 535 U.S. 1103, 122 S.Ct. 2308, 152 L.Ed.2d 1063 (2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Ford's sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Ford's motion and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Ford, 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
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 2025)…ion under Holland); Ford v. State, 168 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 2015) (table) (affirming denial of Ford's first successive motion for postconviction relief and denying his request to file a belated state petition for a writ of habeas corpus); Ford v. State, 237 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2018) (affirming denial of Ford's second successive motion for postconviction relief and denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Governor Ron DeSantis signed Ford's death warrant on January 10, 2025. Ford then filed a third success…
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)
- Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2001)