Charles William Finney v. State of Florida

235 So. 3d 280
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 26, 2018
DocketSC17-985
StatusPublished

This text of 235 So. 3d 280 (Charles William Finney v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles William Finney v. State of Florida, 235 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

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

Kelley’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Kelley’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Kelley responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Kelley’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Kelley is not entitled to relief. Kelley was sentenced to death following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to three, and his sentence of death became final in 1986. See Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 1986).1 Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Kelley’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Kelley’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Kelley, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in. result. QUINCE, J., recused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kelley v. State
486 So. 2d 578 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Finney v. State
660 So. 2d 674 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Florida
202 So. 3d 40 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
226 So. 3d 216 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Hurst v. Florida
577 U.S. 92 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Allen v. United States
138 S. Ct. 513 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Finney v. Florida
516 U.S. 1096 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Sedlak v. Smith
138 S. Ct. 515 (Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 So. 3d 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-william-finney-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.