LOUIS B. GASKIN, 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.
Louis B. Gaskin appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, which addressed jury voting requirements in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gaskin's death sentence, which became final in 1993.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Gaskin's death sentence because his sentence became final in 1993, prior to the Hurst decision. Accordingly, Gaskin is not entitled to relief under Hurst, and the circuit court's denial of his Rule 3.851 motion was proper.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking to apply a new Supreme Court ruling retroactively may be denied if the sentence was final before the ruling.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gaskin's sentence of death”
Establishes the core holding that the Hurst decision is not retroactively applicable to death sentences that became final 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 intelligenceGaskin was sentenced to two death sentences following a jury recommendation for two death sentences by a vote of eight to four. Gaskin's sentence of d…
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 Retroactivity Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Louis B. Gaskin's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Gaskin's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Gaskin'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). 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), Gaskin responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Gaskin's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Gaskin is not entitled to relief. Gaskin was sentenced to two sentences of death following a jury's recommendation for "two death sentences for [two] murders [both] by a vote of eight to four." Gaskin v. State , 218 So.3d 399, 400 (Fla. 2017) (citing Gaskin v. State , 591 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla. 1991) ). Gaskin's sentence of death became final in 1993. Id. at 401. Thus, as this Court has previously determined, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gaskin's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217 ; Gaskin , 218 So.3d at 401 (denying Gaskin's claim to relief under Hurst v. Florida ). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gaskin's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gaskin, 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
-
Gaskin v. State of Fla. & Louis B. Gaskin v. Ricky D. Dixon, 361 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 2023)…nviction appeal upon remand, affirming the denial of relief on Gaskin’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims); Gaskin v. State, 218 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2017) (opinion affirming the denial of first successive postconviction motion); Gaskin v. State, 237 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 2018) (opinion affirming the denial of second successive postconviction -6- motion); Gaskin v. State, 2020 WL 57987 (Fla. Jan. 6, 2020) (order dismissing pro se all writs petition); Gaskin v. State, 2020 WL 2467112 (Fla. May 13, 2020) (order d…
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)
- Gaskin v. State, 591 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1991)