Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of Florida.

LOUIS B. GASKIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. SC17-2190

Decided: February 28, 2018

James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, James L. Driscoll Jr., David Dixon Hendry and Gregory W. Brown, 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 Louis B. Gaskin's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Gaskin's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Gaskin'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). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), Gaskin responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Gaskin's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Gaskin is not entitled to relief. Gaskin was sentenced to two sentences of death following a jury's recommendation for “two death sentences for [two] murders [both] by a vote of eight to four.” Gaskin v. State, 218 So. 3d 399, 400 (Fla. 2017) (citing Gaskin v. State, 591 So. 2d 917, 919 (Fla. 1991)). Gaskin's sentence of death became final in 1993. Id. at 401. Thus, as this Court has previously determined, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gaskin's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217; Gaskin, 218 So. 3d at 401 (denying Gaskin's claim to relief under Hurst v. Florida). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gaskin's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gaskin, 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.


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