DUCKETT v. STATE (2018)

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

Duckett'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). Duckett 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 Duckett's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Duckett is not entitled to relief. Duckett was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death following the jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in 1990. Duckett v. State, 568 So.2d 891, 894 (Fla. 1990). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Duckett's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217; see also Foster v. State, No. SC18-860, 258 So.3d 1248, 1251–52, 2018 WL 6379348, at *2-4 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018) (explaining why the “elements of ‘capital first-degree murder’ ” argument derived from Hurst and the legislation implementing Hurst “has no merit”). Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court's order denying relief.

It is so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, J., concur in result.