Loran Cole v. State of Florida

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 23, 2018
DocketSC17-737
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Loran Cole v. State of Florida, (Fla. 2018).

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

Cole v. State
701 So. 2d 845 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
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)
Cole v. Florida
523 U.S. 1051 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Allen v. United States
138 S. Ct. 513 (Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Loran Cole v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loran-cole-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.