CHADWICK WILLACY, 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.
Chadwick Willacy appealed the denial of his motion for relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed capital sentencing procedures. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Willacy's death sentence, which became final in 1997.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Willacy's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 1997, prior to the Hurst decision. The circuit court's denial of Willacy's motion was therefore affirmed.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on a change in law is properly denied when a prior controlling case precedent dictates the outcome.
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“Willacy's sentence of death became final in 1997. Willacy v. Florida, 522 U.S. 970, 118 S.Ct. 419, 139 L.Ed.2d 321 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Willacy's sentence of death.”
Establishes the court's holding that retroactivity analysis precludes Hurst relief when the sentence became final 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 intelligenceWillacy was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. His sentence became final in 1997. Willacy filed …
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 Chadwick Willacy's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Willacy's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Willacy'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 Willacy'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, Willacy responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Willacy's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Willacy is not entitled to relief. Willacy was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Willacy v. State, 696 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1997). Willacy's sentence of death became final in 1997. Willacy v. Florida, 522 U.S. 970, 118 S.Ct. 419, 139 L.Ed.2d 321 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Willacy's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Willacy's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Willacy, 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 Hitchcockv. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. de *102nied, --- 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
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)
- Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 696 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1997)