PONTICELLI v. STATE (2020)

Anthony John Ponticelli, a prisoner under two sentences of death, appeals the circuit court's order denying his successive postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1).

Ponticelli's two sentences of death became final in 1993. Ponticelli v. State, 618 So. 2d 154 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 935, 114 S.Ct. 352, 126 L.Ed.2d 316 (1993). In seeking relief from his death sentences below, Ponticelli raised claims predicated on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and this Court's decision on remand in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), from which we have since receded in State v. Poole, 292 So.3d 694 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), clarified, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S121, 2020 WL 1592953 (Fla. Apr. 2, 2020).

The United States Supreme Court's precedent and our precedent foreclose relief as to Ponticelli's claims. See McKinney v. Arizona, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 702, 707-08, 206 L.Ed.2d 69 (2020) (holding that, under Hurst v. Florida, “a jury must find the aggravating circumstance that makes the defendant death eligible,” but that a jury “is not constitutionally required to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances or to make the ultimate sentencing decision within the relevant sentencing range,” and that Hurst v. Florida “do[es] not apply retroactively on collateral review”); see also Poole, 45 Fla. L. Weekly at S48, 292 So.3d at –––– (“reced[ing] from Hurst v. State except to the extent it requires a jury unanimously to find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt” as required by Hurst v. Florida); Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216, 217 (Fla. 2017) (holding that Hurst v. Florida as interpreted in Hurst v. State is not retroactive to defendants similarly situated to Ponticelli). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's denial.

It is so ordered.

Ponticelli's death sentences became final before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). See Ponticelli v. State, 618 So. 2d 154 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 935, 114 S.Ct. 352, 126 L.Ed.2d 316 (1993). Thus, consistent with this Court's decision in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), I concur in the result.

I do, however, dissent to the majority's reliance on State v. Poole, 292 So.3d 694 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), with which I strenuously disagree and which I conclude was wrongly decided.

PER CURIAM.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.