GERALDS v. STATE (2018)

We have for review Mark Allen Geralds' appeal of the circuit court's order denying Geralds' motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Geralds' 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), Geralds responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Geralds' response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Geralds is not entitled to relief. Geralds was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 98 (Fla. 1996). Geralds' sentence of death became final in 1996. Geralds v. Florida, 519 U.S. 891, 117 S.Ct. 230, 136 L.Ed.2d 161 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Geralds' sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Geralds' motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Geralds, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

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.

PER CURIAM.

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.