Gregory Alan Kokal v. State of Florida
This text of Gregory Alan Kokal v. State of Florida (Gregory Alan Kokal 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.
Opinion
Supreme Court of Florida ____________
No. SC17-807 ____________
GREGORY ALAN KOKAL, Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
[January 24, 2018]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Gregory Alan Kokal’s appeal of the circuit court’s order
denying Kokal’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Kokal’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 Kokal’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v.
State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-6180, 2017 WL 4355572 (U.S. Dec. 4, 2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Kokal responded to this
Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in
this case.
After reviewing Kokal’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Kokal is not entitled to relief. Kokal
was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death,
and his sentence of death became final in 1986. Kokal v. State, 492 So. 2d 1317,
1319 (Fla. 1986). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Kokal’s sentence of
death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
Kokal’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Kokal, 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, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now
final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting
opinion in Hitchcock.
-2- An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Russell L. Healey, Judge - Case No. 161983CF008975AXXXMA
Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Wilton Manners, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gregory Alan Kokal v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-alan-kokal-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.