Norberto Pietri v. State of Florida

236 So. 3d 235
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 2, 2018
DocketSC17-1281
StatusPublished

This text of 236 So. 3d 235 (Norberto Pietri 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
Norberto Pietri v. State of Florida, 236 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Norberto Pietri's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Pietri's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Pietri's motion sought relief 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 Pietri'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 , Pietri responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Pietri's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Pietri is not entitled to relief. Pietri was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Pietri v. State , 644 So.2d 1347 , 1349 (Fla. 1994). Pietri's sentence of death became final in 1995. Pietri v. Florida , 515 U.S. 1147 , 115 S.Ct. 2588 , 132 L.Ed.2d 836 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Pietri's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217 . Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Pietri's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Pietri, 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 , *237 --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock .

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

Related

Pietri v. State
644 So. 2d 1347 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
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)
Thinh Van Cao v. Massachusetts
515 U.S. 1146 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Pietri v. Florida
515 U.S. 1147 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Pietri v. Florida
515 U.S. 1147 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Allen v. United States
138 S. Ct. 513 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Sedlak v. Smith
138 S. Ct. 515 (Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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