Robert J. Trease v. State of Florida

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 24, 2018
DocketSC17-686
StatusPublished

This text of Robert J. Trease v. State of Florida (Robert J. Trease 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
Robert J. Trease v. State of Florida, (Fla. 2018).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC17-686 ____________

ROBERT J. TREASE, Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

[January 24, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Robert J. Trease’s appeal of the circuit court’s order

denying Trease’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Trease’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 Trease’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, Trease responded to this Court’s order to show cause

arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Trease’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Trease is not entitled to relief. Trease

was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of

eleven to one, and his sentence of death became final in 2001. Trease v. State, 768

So. 2d 1050, 1053 (Fla. 2000). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to

Trease’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we

affirm the denial of Trease’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Trease, 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, J., concur in result. CANADY, J., recused.

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 Sarasota County,

-2- Rochelle Taylor Curley, Judge - Case No. 581995CF002207XXXANC

Mark Olive, Law Offices of Mark Olive, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Ake, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,

for Appellee

-3-

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

Related

Trease v. State
768 So. 2d 1050 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
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)
Allen v. United States
138 S. Ct. 513 (Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert J. Trease v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-j-trease-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.