VICTOR TONY JONES, 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.
Victor Tony Jones appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which addressed jury sentencing requirements in capital cases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones' death sentences, which became final in 1995.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones' sentences of death because his sentences became final in 1995, well before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Jones is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief seeking application of a new Supreme Court ruling will be denied if the ruling is not retroactive to the movant's final conviction and…
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“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones' sentences of death.”
The Court's holding that Hurst cannot be applied retroactively to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree murder. A jury recommended death for one count by a vote of 10-2 and for the other count una…
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 Victor Tony Jones' appeal of the circuit court's order denying Jones' motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Jones' 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). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), Jones responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Jones' response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Jones is not entitled to relief. A jury convicted Jones of two counts of first-degree *66murder and recommended a sentence of death for each count, one by a vote of ten to two and the other by a vote of twelve to zero. Jones v. State , 652 So.2d 346, 348 (Fla. 1995). Following the jury's recommendations, the trial court sentenced Jones to death on both counts. Id. Jones' sentences of death became final in 1995. Jones v. Florida , 516 U.S. 875, 116 S.Ct. 202, 133 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones' sentences of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Jones' motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jones, 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
Cited By
-
…(Fla. 2014) (table) (voluntary dismissal of appeal of denial of third successive motion for postconviction relief); Jones v. State, 231 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 2017) (affirming denial of fourth successive motion for postconviction relief); Jones v. State, 241 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2018) (affirming denial of fifth successive motion for postconviction relief). Governor Ron DeSantis signed Jones's death warrant on August 29, 2025. Jones then filed his sixth successive motion for - 4 - ---PAGE 4--- postconviction relief un…
Authorities Cited (12 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)
- Jones v. State, 652 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1995)