Terance Valentine v. State of Florida
This text of Terance Valentine v. State of Florida (Terance Valentine 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. SC18-1102 ____________
TERANCE VALENTINE, Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
June 4, 2020
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a successive
motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.851.1 We affirm the denial of relief.
First, Valentine’s claim relating to the legal name of one of his victims, to
whom he had been married, is untimely and procedurally barred. See Fla. R. Crim.
P. 3.851(d)(1) (“Any motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentence of
death shall be filed by the defendant within 1 year after the judgment and sentence
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. become final.”); Hendrix v. State, 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125 (Fla. 2014) (“Claims
raised and rejected in prior postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred
from being litigated in a successive motion.”). This information was known to
Valentine and raised during his initial postconviction proceedings. See Valentine
v. State, 98 So. 3d 44, 50 n.8, 51 (Fla. 2012).
Second, the trial court properly denied Valentine Hurst2 relief because he
waived his right to a penalty phase jury. See Twilegar v. State, 228 So. 3d 550,
551 (Fla. 2017) (“[T]he Hurst decisions do not apply to defendants like Twilegar
who waived a penalty phase jury.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Valentine’s successive motion for
postconviction relief.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. COURIEL, J., did not participate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Michelle Sisco, Judge - Case No. 291988CF012996000AHC
Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer and Maria DeLiberato of Parmer DeLiberato. P.A., Tampa, Florida,
2. Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016); Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016).
-2- for Appellant
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Rick A. Buchwalter, 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
Terance Valentine v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terance-valentine-v-state-of-florida-fla-2020.