Larry Darnell Perry v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: February 20, 2017
• Docket: SC16-547
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2017

CASE NO.: SC16-547 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 5D16-516; 492013CF000612XXXAXX

LARRY DARNELL PERRY vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

Respondent’s Motion for Clarification is hereby denied as moot. See Evans

v. State, No. SC16-1946, Rosario v. State, No. SC16-2133.

LABARGA, C.J., and LEWIS, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs. LAWSON, J., did not participate.

PARIENTE, J., dissenting.

I would deny Respondent’s Motion for Clarification based on the Court’s

explicit ruling in our original opinion in Perry v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S449

(Fla. Oct. 14, 2016), which concluded:

Based on the reasoning of our opinion in Hurst[ v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)], we answer both certified questions in the negative. As to the second question, we construe the fact-finding provisions of the revised section 921.141, Florida Statutes, constitutionally in conformance with Hurst to require unanimous findings on all statutory elements required to impose death. The Act, however, is unconstitutional because it requires that only ten jurors recommend death as opposed to the constitutionally required unanimous, twelve-member jury. Accordingly, it cannot be applied to pending prosecutions.

Perry, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at S453 (emphasis added). CASE NO.: SC16-547 Page Two

However, in light of the Court’s opinion today in Evans and Rosario,

determining that “the revised statutory scheme in chapter 2016-13, Laws of

Florida, can be applied to pending prosecutions,” which explicitly contradicts our

holding in Perry, I would grant Respondent’s Motion for Clarification in this case.

Evans v. State, No. SC16-1946, and Rosario v. State, No. SC16-2133

(consolidated) (slip op. issued Fla. Feb. 20, 2017), at 6 (emphasis added).

Respondent’s Motion for Clarification cannot now be “moot” following the

majority’s opinion in Evans and Rosario, which is in direct conflict with our

holding in Perry; therefore, issuing a revised opinion would be the appropriate

procedure.

QUINCE, J., concurs.

A True Copy Test:

sl Served:

PETER MILLS NANCY GBANA ABUDU CASE NO.: SC16-547 Page Three

FRANK J. BANKOWITZ MARTIN J. MCCLAIN MARK ANTHONY INTERLICCHIO, JR. STEVEN L. BOLOTIN MICHAEL CHANCE MEYER JOHN PAUL ABATECOLA KAREN MARCIA GOTTLIEB LINDA MCDERMOTT HON. JULIANNE M. HOLT SONYA RUDENSTINE J. EDWIN MILLS ELLIOT H. SCHERKER NORMAN ADAM TEBRUGGE ROBERT ARTHUR YOUNG ROBERT R. BERRY NEAL ANDRE DUPREE VIVIAN ANN SINGLETON TODD GERALD SCHER KENNETH SLOAN NUNNELLEY CAROL MARIE DITTMAR SUZANNE MYERS KEFFER HON. JON BERKLEY MORGAN, JUDGE HON. JOANNE P. SIMMONS, CLERK HON. ARMANDO R. RAMIREZ, CLERK