BILLY LEON KEARSE, 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.
Billy Leon Kearse sought relief from his death sentence based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, which changed capital sentencing procedures. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to his sentence, which became final in 2001.
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Kearse's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 2001, before Hurst was decided. Therefore, Kearse is not entitled to relief under Hurst.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief based on Hurst v. …
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“Kearse was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death [...] His sentence of death became final in 2001 [...] Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Kearse's sentence of death.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that retroactive application of Hurst is blocked because Kearse's sentence was 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 intelligenceKearse was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 2001. He filed a motion under …
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 Billy Leon Kearse's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Kearse's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Kearse'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). Kearse responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Kearse's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Kearse is not entitled to relief. Kearse was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. Kearse v. State , 770 So.2d 1119, 1123 (Fla. 2000). His sentence of death became final in 2001. Kearse v. Florida , 532 U.S. 945, 121 S.Ct. 1411, 149 L.Ed.2d 352 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Kearse's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Kearse's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Kearse, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
CANADY, C.J., concurs 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.), 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 that Hurst should apply retroactively to cases like Kearse's. Id. at 220-23 (Pariente, *695J., dissenting). Of course, if Hurst1 applied to Kearse's case, he would likely not be entitled to relief based on the jury's unanimous recommendation for death, coupled with the absence of any stricken aggravating factors. Kearse v. State , 770 So.2d 1119, 1123 (Fla. 2000) ; see Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142, 174-75 (Fla. 2016).
Notwithstanding, I emphasize Justice Anstead's dissenting opinion on direct appeal that Justice Shaw and I joined, which argued that "this case is clearly not one of the most aggravated, least mitigated of first-degree murders." Kearse , 770 So.2d at 1136 (Anstead, J., dissenting). Regardless of whether Hurst applies retroactively to Kearse's case, Justice Anstead's conclusion "that this is clearly not a death case" is significant. Id. at 1138.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kearse v. State (Fla. 2026)…ing successive motion for postconviction relief); *Kearse v. State*, No. SC17-346, 2017 WL 5951617, at *1 (Fla. May 9, 2017) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal of dismissal of successive motion for postconviction relief); *Kearse v. State*, 252 So. 3d 693, 694 (Fla. 2018) (affirming denial of successive motion for postconviction - 4 - ---PAGE 4--- relief); *Kearse v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.*, 2022 WL 3661526, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2022) (affirming denial of federal habeas relief). Governor R…
Authorities Cited (14 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)
- Kearse v. State, 770 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2000)