Gregory Alan Kokal v. State of Florida

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 24, 2018
DocketSC17-807
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Gregory Alan Kokal v. State of Florida, (Fla. 2018).

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

Kokal v. State
492 So. 2d 1317 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.