MILFORD WADE BYRD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Byrd's motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Byrd's death sentence because it became final in 1986, before Hurst was decided.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Byrd's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1986, and the Court's decision in Hitchcock v. State establishes that Hurst does not have retroactive application to sentences that became final before Hurst was decided.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking application of a new Supreme Court ruling will be denied if the sentence at issue became final prior to that ruling.
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“Byrd was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death.”
Establishes the basic facts of Byrd's sentencing and the jury's role in recommending the death penalty
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceByrd was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 1986. Byrd filed a motion under Florida Ru…
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 Milford Wade Byrd's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Byrd's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Byrd's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *923Hurst 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). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), Byrd responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Byrd's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Byrd is not entitled to relief. Byrd was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death. Byrd v. State , 481 So.2d 468, 471 (Fla. 1985).1 Byrd's sentence of death became final in 1986. Byrd v. Florida , 476 U.S. 1153, 106 S.Ct. 2261, 90 L.Ed.2d 705 (1986). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Byrd's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Byrd's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Byrd, 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 (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)
- 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)
- Kemp v. Wilson, 476 U.S. 1153 (U.S. 1986)