Ian Deco Lightbourne v. State of Florida

235 So. 3d 285
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 26, 2018
DocketSC17-837
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 So. 3d 285 (Ian Deco Lightbourne 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
Ian Deco Lightbourne v. State of Florida, 235 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 2018).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Ian Deco Lightb-ourne’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Lightbourne’s motion filed pursuant to Florida.Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Lightbourne’s motion sought reliéf 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 Lightbourne’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, Lightbourne responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Lightbourne’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lightbourne is not entitled to relief. Lightbourne was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by an unrecorded vote. See Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 391 (Fla. 1983).1 Lightbourne’s sentence of death became final in 1984. Lightbourne v. Florida, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lightbourne’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lightb-ourne’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lightbourne, 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.

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

Related

Ian Deco Lightbourne v. State of Florida
252 So. 3d 702 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 So. 3d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ian-deco-lightbourne-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.