Loran Cole v. State of Florida
This text of Loran Cole v. State of Florida (Loran Cole 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. SC17-737 ____________
LORAN COLE, Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
[January 23, 2018]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Loran Cole’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying
Cole’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This
Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Cole’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 Cole’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v.
State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Cole responded to this Court’s order to show cause
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Cole’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Cole is not entitled to relief. Cole was
sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Cole
v. State, 701 So. 2d 845, 849 (Fla. 1997). Cole’s sentence of death became final in
1998. Cole v. Florida, 523 U.S. 1051 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply
retroactively to Cole’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Cole’s motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Cole, 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.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Marion County, Willard Ira Pope, Judge - Case No. 421994CF000498CFAXXX
-2- James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida,
for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa-Marie Lerner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, 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
Loran Cole v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loran-cole-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.