William Gregory Thomas v. State of Florida , 237 So. 3d 907 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC17-809
    ____________
    WILLIAM GREGORY THOMAS,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    [January 24, 2018]
    PER CURIAM.
    We have for review William Gregory Thomas’s appeal of the circuit court’s
    order denying Thomas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
    Thomas’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 Thomas’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, Thomas responded to this Court’s order to
    show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
    After reviewing Thomas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as
    the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Thomas is not entitled to relief.
    Thomas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a
    vote of eleven to one. Thomas v. State, 
    693 So. 2d 951
    , 951 (Fla. 1997).
    Thomas’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Thomas v. Florida, 
    522 U.S. 985
    (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Thomas’s sentence of
    death. See 
    Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217
    . Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
    Thomas’s motion.
    The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Thomas, 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, 
    2017 WL 4355572
    (U.S. Dec. 4,
    2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my
    dissenting opinion in Hitchcock.
    -2-
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County,
    Russell L. Healey, Judge - Case No. 161993CF005394AXXXMA
    Bjorn Brunvand and J. Jervis Wise, Brunvand Wise, P.A., Clearwater, Florida,
    for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant
    Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
    for Appellee
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SC17-809

Citation Numbers: 237 So. 3d 907

Filed Date: 1/24/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023