RONNIE JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. RONNIE JOHNSON, 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.
Ronnie Johnson, sentenced to death for two murders, sought relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which changed the constitutional requirements for capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motions, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to his death sentences because they became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnson's death sentences because the sentences became final in 1998, before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Johnson is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[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 Johnson's sentences of death.”
Establishes the core holding that Hurst's protections do 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 intelligenceJohnson was sentenced to death for the murder of Lee Arthur Lawrence following a jury recommendation of death by a vote of 7-5, and for the murder of …
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
*631We have for review Ronnie Johnson's appeals of the circuit court's orders denying Johnson's motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Johnson's motions 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 Defendant's appeals 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 , Johnson responded to this Court's orders to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in these cases.
After reviewing Johnson's responses to the orders to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Johnson is not entitled to relief. Johnson was sentenced to death for the murder of Lee Arthur Lawrence following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Johnson v. State , 696 So.2d 317, 320 (Fla. 1997). Johnson was also sentenced to death for the murder of Tequila Larkins following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Johnson v. State , 696 So.2d 326, 329 (Fla. 1997). Both of Johnson's sentences of death became final in 1998. Johnson v. Florida , 522 U.S. 1120, 118 S.Ct. 1062, 140 L.Ed.2d 123 (1998) ; Johnson v. Florida , 522 U.S. 1095, 118 S.Ct. 892, 139 L.Ed.2d 878 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnson's sentences of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Johnson's motions.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Johnson, 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 (15 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)
- Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1997)