Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida

237 So. 3d 927
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 28, 2018
DocketSC17-2057
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 So. 3d 927 (Darryl Brian Barwick 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
Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida, 237 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

*928 Barwick'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). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), Barwick responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Barwick's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Barwick is not entitled to relief. Barwick was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. Barwick v. State , 660 So.2d 685 , 689 (Fla. 1995). Barwick's sentence of death became final in 1996. Barwick v. Florida , 516 U.S. 1097 , 116 S.Ct. 823 , 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Barwick's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217 . Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Barwick's motion.

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

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.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock .

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

Related

Darryl Brian Barwick v. State of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 So. 3d 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darryl-brian-barwick-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.