IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE, 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.
Ian Deco Lightbourne appealed the circuit court's denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking postconviction relief based on the Hurst v. Florida decision regarding jury requirements in capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that prior precedent establishing Hurst's non-retroactive application barred Lightbourne's claims.
The Florida Supreme Court held that its prior denial of Lightbourne's appeal from the circuit court's denial of his successive postconviction motion raising similar claims constitutes a procedural bar, and that all of Lightbourne's claims depend upon retroactive application of Hurst to which he is not entitled under prior precedent.
[1] A prior denial of a defendant's appeal from the denial of a successive motion for postconviction relief can procedurally bar subsequent claims raising similar issues.
[2] Claims dependent on the retroactive application of 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“All of Lightbourne's claims depend upon the retroactive application of Hurst, to which we have held he is not entitled.”
Establishes the core basis for affirming the denial—Lightbourne's inability to benefit from Hurst's non-retroactive application
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLightbourne filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 seeking relief based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst …
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 Retroactive Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
*703We have for review Ian Deco Lightbourne's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Lightbourne's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Lightbourne'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). Lightbourne responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why this Court's decisions in Lightbourne v. State , 235 So.3d 285 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed , No. 18-5012 (U.S. June 28, 2018), and 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 Lightbourne's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Lightbourne's appeal from the circuit court's denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the claims at issue in this appeal. All of Lightbourne's claims depend upon the retroactive application of Hurst , to which we have held he is not entitled. See Lightbourne , 235 So.3d at 286 ; Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lightbourne's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lightbourne, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
I agree with the per curiam opinion that we have formerly denied Lightbourne's claims to Hurst1 relief pursuant to Hitchcock ,2 which, of course, is now final. Nevertheless, as I have expressed several times, I would apply Hurst retroactively to Lightbourne's case. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 221-23 (Pariente, J., dissenting). Applying Hurst to Lightbourne's case, in which the jury's vote is unclear, I would grant a new penalty phase because the State cannot prove that the Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Lightbourne v. State, 235 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 2018)