Carl Puiatti v. State of Florida ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC17-552
    ____________
    CARL PUIATTI,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    [January 23, 2018]
    PER CURIAM.
    We have for review Carl Puiatti’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying
    Puiatti’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This
    Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
    Puiatti’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 Puiatti’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, Puiatti responded to this Court’s order to show cause
    arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
    After reviewing Puiatti’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the
    State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Puiatti is not entitled to relief. Puiatti
    was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of
    eleven to one. Puiatti v. State, 
    495 So. 2d 128
    , 130 (Fla. 1986). Puiatti’s sentence
    of death became final in 1988. Puiatti v. Florida, 
    488 U.S. 871
     (1988). Thus,
    Hurst does not apply retroactively to Puiatti’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock,
    226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Puiatti’s motion.
    The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Puiatti, we
    caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
    ordered.
    LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
    PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
    LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
    QUINCE, 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 Pasco County,
    -2-
    Pat Edward Siracusa, Jr., Judge - Case No. 511983CF001383CFBXWS
    Ardith Michelle Bronson, DLA Piper, LLP, Miami, Florida, and Adamn B. Banks,
    Miranda S. Schiller, and Steven A. Reiss, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, New York,
    New York,
    for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney
    General, Tampa, Florida,
    for Appellee
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SC17-552

Filed Date: 1/23/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/23/2018