red
Negative treatment
Hot · 70 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 4×
121.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…he foundational precept of the eighth amendment calls for unanimity in any death recommendation that results in a sentence of death.
at p. 59
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rodney Tyrone Lowe v. State of Florida
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited "see"
in a capital case, the gravity of the proceeding and the concomitant juror responsibility weigh even more heavily, and it can be presumed that the penalty phase jurors will take special care to understand and follow the law.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Michael Gordon Reynolds v. State of Florida
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he foundational precept of the eighth amendment calls for unanimity in any death recommendation that results in a sentence of death.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Lopez
cjust as elements of a crime must be found unanimously by a florida jury, all these findings necessary for the jury to essentially convict a defendant of capital murder-thus allowing imposition of the death penalty-are also elements that must be found unanimously by the jury.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
C.D.C. v. State
where the error concerns sentencing, the error is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the sentence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Edward Jordan v. State of Florida
In the post-conviction phase, Jordan’s death sentence was vacated in 2017 for resentencing under Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 63 (Fla. 2016) (holding that unanimity is required in jury verdicts that recommend the death penalty).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Palmer Heath v. State of Florida & Ronald Palmer Heath v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
On remand from Hurst, this Court held in Hurst v. State that “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” 202 So. 3d at 53.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael James Jackson v. State of Florida
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Jackson’s death sentences were vacated in 2017 based on this Court’s holding in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), “that in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury’s recommended sentence of death must be unanimous.” In the wake of Hurst, the legislature amended section 921.141, Florida Statutes, to provide that, among other things, a sentence of death in a jury trial could only be imposed based on a unanimous jury recommendation of death.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael James Jackson v. State of Florida
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Jackson’s death sentences were vacated in 2017 based on this Court’s holding in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), “that in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury’s recommended sentence of death must be unanimous.” In the wake of Hurst, the legislature amended section 921.141, Florida Statutes, to provide that, among other things, a sentence of death in a jury trial could only be imposed based on a unanimous jury recommendation of death.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flournoy v. State of Florida
"Where the error concerns sentencing, the error is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the sentence." Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016), receded from on other grounds by Gonzalez v. State, 375 So. 3d 886 , 887 (Fla. 2023); see also N.J.O. v. State, 292 So. 3d 491 , 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (holding that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002) (holding that any “aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty” must “be found by a jury” rather than the sentencing judge); Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. at 98 (holding that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violated Ring because it did “not requir…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James D. Ford v. State of Florida
On remand from Hurst, this Court held in Hurst v. State that “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” 202 So. 3d at 53.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Herbert Leon Manago, Jr.
We have - 29 - otherwise consistently maintained that “resentencing should proceed de novo on all issues bearing on the proper sentence,” Morton v. State, 789 So. 2d 324, 334 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Teffeteller v. State, 495 So. 2d 744, 745 (Fla. 1986)), and remanded accordingly, see Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 45 (Fla. 2016) (remanding for a new penalty phase proceeding after concluding that sentencing error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), receded from in part by State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020); Gaymon v. State, 288 So. 3d 1087 , 1093 (Fla. 2020) (remanding with in…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Duane Zack, III v. State of Florida
And Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 59 (Fla. 2016)—which was abrogated in part by State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 , 504 (Fla. 2020)—was never held to retroactively apply to Zack because Ring did not retroactively apply to Zack.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UREL A. BARRETT v. STATE OF FLORIDA
“Where the error concerns sentencing, the error is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the sentence.” Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016). ….
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Khadafy Kareem Mullens
We further held that Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 43 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), did not apply to Mullens since he waived a penalty-phase jury. 197 So. 3d at 39-40 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Coleman
Thurber based his argument on K.S.A. 21-4629, which provided: "In the event a sentence of death or any provision of this act authorizing such sentence is held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Kansas or the United States supreme court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced shall cause such person to be brought before the court and shall modify the sentence and resentence the defendant as otherwise provided by law." The Thurber court compared a similar Florida statute, Section 775.082(2) of the Florida Statutes (2015), which provided in pertinent part: "I…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Mark Anthony Poole
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
As Justice Canady correctly observed in his Hurst v. State dissent, “Hurst v. Florida simply applies the reasoning of Ring and Apprendi to Florida’s death penalty statute and concludes that the jury’s advisory role under Florida law does not satisfy the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.” 202 So. 3d at 79 (Canady, J., dissenting).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawn Rogers v. State of Florida
(7×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 53 (Fla. 2016), this Court held that “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating - 19 - factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” But Hurst did not require that the determinations at issue here—that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances—be made beyond…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC17-246 Eric Kurt Patrick v. State of Florida and Eric Kurt Patrick v. Julie L. Jones, etc
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 57.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC17-246 Eric Kurt Patrick v. State of Florida and Eric Kurt Patrick v. Julie L. Jones, etc. - Corrected Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 57.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry Alexander Taylor v. State of Florida
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
As I stated in Hurst : "If 'death is different,' as this Court and the United States Supreme Court have repeatedly pronounced, then requiring unanimity in the jury's final recommendation of life or death is an essential prerequisite to the continued constitutionality of the death penalty in this State." 202 So.3d at 70 (Pariente, J., concurring) (footnote omitted) (quoting Yacob v. State , 136 So.3d 539 , 546 (Fla. 2014) ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Joseph P. Smith
(3×)
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 54.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Norman M Grim v. State of Florida
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In 2017, on remand from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, this Court made clear in Hurst that the death penalty “must be -8- reserved only for defendants convicted of the most aggravated and least mitigated of murders,” as determined by a jury. 202 So. 3d at 60 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Guzman v. State of Florida – Corrected Opinion
Before Guzman’s third trial, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616, 619 (2016), in which it held that Florida’s former capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because it “required the judge to hold a separate hearing and determine whether sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify imposing the death penalty,” even though “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” On remand in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 57 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JOHN PACCHIANA v. STATE OF FLORIDA
In response to the court’s questioning, the juror stated that the jury “would not be making the sentencing” and that she was “okay with that.” The state itself advised the juror that “[i]f, in fact, you know, you vote that it’s proven, you have nothing to do with sentencing but the Judge would based [sic] on your decision saying it’s proven.” Further, jurors are instructed not to consider sentencing during the penalty phase of trial, and “it is presumed that jurors will, in good faith, follow the law as it is explained to them.” Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 63 (Fla. 201…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. William Frances Silvia
Hurst, 202 So.3d at 53-59.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Joel Lebron v. State of Florida
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). - 27 - Because the jury in this case recommended death by a vote of 9 to 3, “we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation.” Kopsho, 209 So. 3d at 570 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick Hannon v. Secretary, FL DOC
See Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. __ , 136 S. Ct. 616, 619 (2016) (holding Florida’s former death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional because “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death”); Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016) (holding that “in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury’s recommended sentence of death must be unanimous”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick C. Hannon v. State of Florida and
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 59-60 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). - 18 - reasonable doubt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Krawczuk v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Florida has since amended its capital sentencing scheme, and the Florida Supreme Court has held that "in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury’s recommended sentence of death must be unanimous.” Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Noel Doorbal v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). -2- In Mosley v. State, we held that Hurst applies retroactively to those postconviction defendants whose sentences became final after the United States Supreme Court’s June 24, 2002, decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark James Asay v. State of Florida
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40, 60 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. May 22, 2017).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
John Sexton v. State of Florida
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
F. Hurst During the pendency of Sexton’s appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), in which it held that Florida’s former capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because it “required the judge to hold a separate hearing and determine whether sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify imposing the death penalty” even though “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” On remand in Hurst v. St…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC15-859 Donte Jermaine Hall v. State of Florida and Donte Jermaine Hall v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)), cert. denied, No. 16-998 (U.S. May 22, 2017).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bessman Okafor v. State of Florida
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
We have previously held that a juror’s “[pjersistent equivocation or vacillation ... on whether he or she can set aside biases or misgivings concerning the death penalty in a capital penalty phase supplies the reasonable doubt as to the juror’s impartiality which justifies dismissal.” Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 62 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. State, 969 So.2d 938, 947-48 (Fla. 2007)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Armando Card, Sr. v. Julie L. Jones, etc. – Corrected Opinion
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Accordingly, we must determine whether the Hurst error in Card’s penalty phase proceeding was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[I]n the context of a Hurst v. Florida error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s failure to unanimously find all the facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to [the] death sentence.” Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 68.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dale Glenn Middleton v. State of Florida – Revised Opinion
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, we determined that “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating - 61 - circumstances.” Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 53 (Fla. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Birlkey v. State
“Where the error concerns sentencing, the error is harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the sentence.” Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Guerry Wayne Hertz v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC16-399 Matthew Lee Caylor v. State of Florida and Matthew Lee Caylor v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst, 202 So.3d at 65 (“[W]e conclude that the statute does not- mandate automatic commutation to life sentences after the decision in Hurst v. Florida.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC15-2005 Nelson Serrano v. State of Florida and Nelson Serrano v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016) (quoting DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1138 ), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Anthony Cozzie v. State of Florida
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
We have held that “section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes, does not mandate the imposition of a life sentence in the event of a [Hurst] violation.” Knight v. State, 42 , 225 So.3d 661 , 2017 WL 411329 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2017) (citing Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 63-66 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 16, 2017)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Armando Card, Sr. v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Accordingly, we must determine whether the Hurst error in Card’s penalty phase proceeding was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[I]n the context of a Hurst v. Florida error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s failure to unanimously find all the facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to [the] death sentence.” Hurst, 202 So.3d at 68.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC16-6 John Lee Hampton v. State of Florida and John Lee Hampton v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
Moreover, this Court held that “in addition to unanimously finding the existence of any aggravating factor, the jury must also unanimously find that the aggravating factors are sufficient for the imposition of death and unanimously find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigation before a sentence of death may be considered by the judge.” Id. at 54 (emphasis omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC15-1612 Joshua Lee Altersberger v. State of Florida & Joshua Lee Altersberger v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 16, 2017), Because the jury in this case recommended death by a vote of nine to three, “we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation.” Kopsho, 209 So.3d at 570 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dontae Morris v. State of Florida
(2×)
Weekly S133 , S140, — So.3d -, —, 2017 WL 411329 , at *14 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2017) (citing Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 63-66 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
On remand from the United States Supreme Court in Hurst, we stated that “the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida requires that all the critical findings necessary before the trial court may consider imposing a sentence of death must be found unanimously by the jury.” Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40, 44 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC15-297 Donald Lenneth Banks v. State of Florida and Donald Lenneth Banks v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 68 (Fla. 2016) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 1986)), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Standard Criminal Jury Instructions in Capital Cases
(2×)
After an aggravator has been found, all the determinations necessary for the imposition of a death sentence fall outside the category of such “facts.” Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d at 77 (Canady, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor Guzman v. State of Florida
Hurst During the pendency of Guzman’s appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), in which it held that Florida’s former capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because it “required the judge to hold a separate hearing and determine whether sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify imposing the death penalty” even though “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” On remand in Hurst v. State…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary CZAJKOWSKI, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent
SC15-2313.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 6, 2016.
Margaret Good-Earnest and Cherry Grant of Good Earnest Law, P.A., Lake Worth, FL, for Petitioner., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Consiglia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Mark John Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Perry, Labarga.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Florida (1)
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Czajkowski v. State, 178 So.3d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Upon further consideration, we exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur. LABARGA, C.J., recused.