Ronnie Johnson v. State of Florida , 240 So. 3d 630 ( 2018 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC17-1480
____________
RONNIE JOHNSON,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
____________
No. SC17-1484
____________
RONNIE JOHNSON,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
[March 27, 2018]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Ronnie Johnson’s appeals of the circuit court’s orders
denying Johnson’s motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Johnson’s motions 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 Defendant’s appeals pending the disposition of
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).
After this Court decided Hitchcock, Johnson responded to this Court’s orders to
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in these cases.
After reviewing Johnson’s responses to the orders to show cause, as well as
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Johnson is not entitled to relief.
Johnson was sentenced to death for the murder of Lee Arthur Lawrence following
a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Johnson v. State,
696 So. 2d 317, 320 (Fla. 1997). Johnson was also sentenced to death for the
murder of Tequila Larkins following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote
of nine to three. Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326, 329 (Fla. 1997). Both of
Johnson’s sentences of death became final in 1998. Johnson v. Florida, 522 U.S.
1120 (1998); Johnson v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1095 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not
apply retroactively to Johnson’s sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at
217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Johnson’s motions.
-2-
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Johnson, 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, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now
final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting
opinion in Hitchcock.
Appeals from the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County,
Nushin G. Sayfie, Judge - Case Nos. 131989CF0149980001XX &
131989CF012383B000XX
Charles G. White of Charles G. White, P.A., Miami, Florida,
for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Melissa J. Roca,
Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida,
for Appellee
-3-