THOMAS DEWEY POPE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of Florida.

THOMAS DEWEY POPE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. SC17-1812

Decided: February 28, 2018

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, William M. Hennis III, Litigation Director, and Rachel Day, Chief Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Leslie T. Campbell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee

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

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

After reviewing Pope's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Pope is not entitled to relief. Pope was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three, and his sentence of death became final in 1984. Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 1983); Pope v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corrs., 680 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Pope's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Pope's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Pope, 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