RAY LAMAR JOHNSTON, 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.
Ray Lamar Johnston, a death-row inmate convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes, sought successive postconviction relief claiming error under Hurst v. Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief, finding any Hurst error harmless because Johnston received a unanimous jury recommendation for death.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. Any Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Johnston received a unanimous jury recommendation for death. The court also affirmed the denial of Johnston's Hurst-induced Caldwell claim.
[1] A Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant receives a unanimous jury recommendation for death.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to relief on a Hurst-induced Caldwell claim when the Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
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“Johnston received a unanimous jury recommendation of death and, therefore, the Hurst error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
States the court's central holding that any constitutional error was harmless where the jury unanimously recommended death
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnston was convicted of first-degree murder of Leanne Coryell, kidnapping, robbery, sexual battery, and burglary of a conveyance with assault. A jur…
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. State cases and more on FLexlaw
Ray Lamar Johnston appeals an order summarily denying his first successive postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.1
The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court's opinion on direct appeal. Johnston v. State , 841 So.2d 349, 351-55 (Fla. 2002). Johnston was convicted of the first-degree murder of Leanne Coryell, kidnapping, robbery, sexual battery, and burglary of a conveyance with assault. Id. at 351. Following a unanimous jury recommendation for death, the trial court sentenced Johnston to death. Id. at 355.
In this successive postconviction motion, we affirm the denial of Johnston's claim that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Johnston received a unanimous jury recommendation of death and, therefore, the Hurst error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142, 175 (Fla. 2016). Additionally, we affirm the denial of Johnston's Hurst -induced Caldwell2 claim. See Reynolds v. State , No. SC17-793, --- So.3d ----, ---- - ----, slip op. at 26-36, 2018 WL 1633075, at *10-12 (Fla. Apr. 5, 2018).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
*267I cannot agree with the majority's finding that the Hurst error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have stated previously, "[b]ecause Hurst requires 'a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death,' the error cannot be harmless where such a factual determination was not made." Hall v. State , 212 So.3d 1001, 1036-37 (Fla. 2017) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citation omitted) (quoting Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) ); see also Truehill v. State , 211 So.3d 930, 961 (Fla.) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 3, 199 L.Ed.2d 272 (2017). The jury in this case did not make all the factual findings that Hurst requires a jury to make in order to impose all the aggravators at issue in this case. Therefore, I dissent.
QUINCE, J., dissenting. I cannot agree with the majority's finding that the Hurst error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have stated previously, "[b]ecause Hurst requires 'a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death,' the error cannot be harmless where such a factual determination was not made." Hall v. State , 212 So. 3d 1001, 1036-37 (Fla. 2017) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citation omitted) (quoting Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) ); see also Truehill v. State , 211 So. 3d 930, 961 (Fla.) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 3, 199 L.Ed.2d 272 (2017). The jury in this case did not make all the factual findings that Hurst requires a jury to make in order to impose all the aggravators at issue in this case. Therefore, I dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds v. Florida., 139 S. Ct. 27 (U.S. 2018)…6 (2018), cert. denied, supra, p. --- - (citing Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142, 175 (2016), for the proposition that the unanimity of a jury's recommendation for death ensures that jurors have made the necessary findings of fact); Johnston v. State, 246 So. 3d 266 (2018), cert. denied, supra, p. ---- ("Johnston received a unanimous jury recommendation of death and, therefore, the Hurst error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"); Crain v. State, 246 So. 3d 206, 210 (2018) ("[T]his Court can rel…
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)
- Ward v. Neal, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Czajkowski v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)
- Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017)
- Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016)
- Truehill v. Florida. Terence Oliver v. Florida., 138 S. Ct. 3 (U.S. 2017)
- Davis v. State of Fla. & Leon Davis (Fla. 2024)
- Johnston v. State, 841 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2002)