RONALD WAYNE CLARK, JR., 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.
Ronald Wayne Clark, Jr. appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief based on Hurst v. Florida's requirement that juries, not judges, must make critical findings in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Clark's death sentence became final in 1993, before Hurst was decided, and therefore Hurst does not apply retroactively to his sentence.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Clark's death sentence. Because Clark's sentence became final in 1993, he 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 death sentence that became final in 1993 is not subject to retroactive application of 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 Clark's sentence of death.”
Establishes the core holding that Hurst retroactivity does not extend 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 intelligenceClark was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Clark's death sentence was affirmed on appeal and b…
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
We have for review Ronald Wayne Clark, Jr.'s appeal of the circuit court's *100order denying Clark's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Clark'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 Clark'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, Clark responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Clark's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Clark is not entitled to relief. Clark was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Clark v. State, 613 So.2d 412, 413 (Fla. 1992).1 Clark's sentence of death became final in 1993. Clark v. Florida, 510 U.S. 836, 114 S.Ct. 114, 126 L.Ed.2d 79 (1993). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Clark's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Clark's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Clark, 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
Authorities Cited (13 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)
- Clark v. State, 35 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2010)