STEVEN EDWARD STEIN, 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.
Steven Edward Stein appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which requires jury unanimity in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stein's sentences of death because they became final in 1994, prior to the Hurst decision. Therefore, Stein is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The 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 does not apply retroactively to the movant's case.
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“Stein's sentences of death became final in 1994. Stein v. Florida, 513 U.S. 834, 115 S.Ct. 111, 130 L.Ed.2d 58 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stein's sentences of death.”
Establishes the key holding that retroactivity principles bar application of Hurst to sentences finalized 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 intelligenceStein was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree murder. A jury recommended a death sentence for both murders by a vote of ten to two. Stein'…
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 Steven Edward Stein's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Stein's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Stein'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 Stein'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, Stein responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Stein's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Stein is not entitled to relief. A jury convicted Stein of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended a sentence of death for both murders by a vote of ten to two. Stein v. State, 632 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Fla. 1994). Stein's sentences of death became final in 1994. Stein v. Florida, 513 U.S. 834, 115 S.Ct. 111, 130 L.Ed.2d 58 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stein's sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Stein's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Stein, 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
-
Stein v. State, 406 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 2024)…State, 91 So. 3d 784 (Fla.) (affirming summary denial of first successive postconviction motion), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1034 (2012); Stein v. Jones, No. SC16-0621, 2017 WL 836806 (Fla. Mar. 3, 2017) (denying state habeas petition); Stein v. State, 237 So. 3d 919 (Fla.) (affirming - 3 - ---PAGE 3--- Before us now is the circuit court order denying Stein's third successive postconviction motion. Stein's claims involve Kyle White, a state witness who testified at trial that Stein and Christmas planned to kil…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 260 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2018)…became final in 2000. See Rodriguez , 237 So. 3d at 919. Therefore, because Rodriguez is not entitled to relief under Hurst or the legislation implementing the rights recognized in Hurst , we affirm the denial of Rodriguez's motion. See Rodriguez , 237 So. 3d 919 ; Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Rodriguez, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, a…
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)
- Stein v. State, 632 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1994)