JASON DEMETRIUS STEPHENS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. JASON DEMETRIUS STEPHENS, APPELLANT, V. JULIE L. JONES, ETC., 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.
Stephens, a death row inmate whose sentence became final in 2001, sought relief under Hurst v. Florida, which held that jury recommendations in capital cases must be binding rather than advisory. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stephens' sentence of death because his sentence became final in 2001, prior to the Hurst decision. Accordingly, Stephens is not entitled to relief.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for rehearing that contains reargument will be stricken.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 Stephens' sentence of death.”
The court's holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to 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 intelligenceStephens was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. His death sentence became final in 2001. Steph…
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
Jason Demetrius Stephens 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.
Stephens 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 Stephens' 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, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Stephens responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both cases.
After reviewing Stephens' response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Stephens is not entitled to relief. Stephens was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote *95of nine to three. Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 752 (Fla. 2001). Stephens' sentence of death became final in 2001. Stephens v. Florida, 534 U.S. 1025, 122 S.Ct. 556, 151 L.Ed.2d 431 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stephens' sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Stephens' motion and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Stephens, 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), 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)
- Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2001)
- 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)
- Williams v. Illinois, 534 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 2001)