ROBERT MORRIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of Florida.

ROBERT D. MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. SC17-873

Decided: January 26, 2018

James Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis, and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

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

Morris's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Morris's appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Morris responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Morris's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Morris is not entitled to relief. Morris was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in May 2002. Morris v. State, 811 So. 2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Morris's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Morris's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morris, 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, 138 S. Ct. 513 (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.

Copied to clipboard