LAMARCA v. STATE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Anthony LAMARCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17–1179

Decided: January 30, 2018

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida; James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

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

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

After reviewing Lamarca's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Lamarca is not entitled to relief. Lamarca was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. LaMarca v. State, 785 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 2001). Lamarca's sentence of death became final in 2001. LaMarca v. Florida, 534 U.S. 925 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lamarca's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lamarca's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lamarca, 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