RICARDO GONZALEZ, 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.
Ricardo Gonzalez appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, which had invalidated Florida's prior capital sentencing scheme. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial because Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gonzalez's death sentence, which became final in 2001, well before Hurst was decided in 2016.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gonzalez's death sentence because his sentence became final in 2001, long before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Gonzalez was not entitled to relief under the retroactivity analysis established in Hitchcock v. State.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A death sentence affirmed on direct appeal and finalized in 2001 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 Gonzalez's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217.”
The court's holding regarding the non-retroactive application of Hurst to Gonzalez's sentence because it became final in 2001.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez was sentenced to death following a jury recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. His death sentence became final in 2001. Gonzale…
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 Ricardo Gonzalez's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Gonzalez's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Gonzalez'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 Gonzalez's appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock , Gonzalez responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Gonzalez's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Gonzalez is not entitled to relief. Gonzalez was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in 2001.1 Gonzalez v. State , 786 So.2d 559, 563 (Fla. 2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gonzalez's sentence of death. See *630Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gonzalez's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gonzalez, 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 (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)
- Gonzalez v. State, 990 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2008)