Robert J. Trease v. State of Florida
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.