John Calvin Taylor, II v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

Supreme Court of Florida

John Calvin Taylor, II v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

228 So. 3d 71, 2017 WL 4546073

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 2017

DocketSC17-1145

StatusPublished

This text of 228 So. 3d 71 (John Calvin Taylor, II v. Julie L. Jones, etc.) 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

John Calvin Taylor, II v. Julie L. Jones, etc., 228 So. 3d 71, 2017 WL 4546073 (Fla. 2017).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

John Calvin Taylor, II, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). We have jurisdiction.* See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.

Taylor’s death sentence, which his penalty phase jury recommended by a vote of ten to two, became final in 2004. See Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003), cert. denied, Taylor v. Florida, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1605, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004). We have held that Hurst applies retroactively to “defendants whose sentences became final after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring[ v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ].” Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248, 1276 (Fla. 2016). Thus, Hurst applies retroactively to Taylor.

Because the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two, Taylor’s death sentence violates Hurst. See Kopsho v. State, 209 So.3d 568, 570 (Fla. 2017). Accordingly, we must consider whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt:

The harmless error test, as set forth in Chapman[ v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967),] and progeny, places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

Hurst, 202 So.3d at 68 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)).

While the aggravators in this case are such that no reasonable juror would have failed to find their existence,¹ based bn the jury’s ten-to-two recommendation for a sentence of death, we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a sentence of death. Nor can we “determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation.” Kopsho, 209 So.3d at 570. “We can only determine that the jury did not unanimously recommend a sentence of death.” Id. Therefore, because we cannot say that there is no reasonable possibility that the error did not contribute to the sentence, the Hurst error in Taylor’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 142, 174-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2218, 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017).

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted. We vacate the death sentence and remand to the circuit court for a new penalty phase. See Hurst, 202 So.3d at 69.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. LAWSON, J., concurs specially with an opinion. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Calvin Taylor, II, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). We have jurisdiction.* See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.

Taylor’s death sentence, which his penalty phase jury recommended by a vote of ten to two, became final in 2004. See Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003), cert. denied, Taylor v. Florida, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1605, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004). We have held that Hurst applies retroactively to “defendants whose sentences became final after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring[ v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ].” Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248, 1276 (Fla. 2016). Thus, Hurst applies retroactively to Taylor.

Because the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two, Taylor’s death sentence violates Hurst. See Kopsho v. State, 209 So.3d 568, 570 (Fla. 2017). Accordingly, we must consider whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt:

The harmless error test, as set forth in Chapman[ v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967),] and progeny, places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

Hurst, 202 So.3d at 68 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)).

While the aggravators in this case are such that no reasonable juror would have failed to find their existence,¹ based bn the jury’s ten-to-two recommendation for a sentence of death, we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a sentence of death. Nor can we “determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation.” Kopsho, 209 So.3d at 570. “We can only determine that the jury did not unanimously recommend a sentence of death.” Id. Therefore, because we cannot say that there is no reasonable possibility that the error did not contribute to the sentence, the Hurst error in Taylor’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 142, 174-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2218, 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017).

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted. We vacate the death sentence and remand to the circuit court for a new penalty phase. See Hurst, 202 So.3d at 69.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. LAWSON, J., concurs specially with an opinion. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 So. 3d 71, 2017 WL 4546073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-calvin-taylor-ii-v-julie-l-jones-etc-fla-2017.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack