Walton v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Jason Dirk Walton’s second successive motion for postconviction relief from three death sentences. The court held that Porter v. McCollum was an application and evolutionary refinement of Strickland v. Washington, not a fundamental constitutional change warranting retroactive application under Witt v. State.

Holdings

1. Porter v. McCollum did not constitute a fundamental change in constitutional law under Witt v. State; it merely applied and refined the existing Strickland v. Washington ineffective-assistance framework. Therefore, Porter could not provide a basis for retroactive review of Walton's untimely second successive Rule 3.851 motion.
2. The postconviction court properly summarily denied Walton's second successive Rule 3.851 motion because it was untimely, successive, procedurally barred, and did not allege a legally cognizable exception based on a retroactively applicable fundamental constitutional change.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Porter v. McCollum constituted a fundamental constitutional change in law under Witt v. State that could be applied retroactively to permit Walton's untimely second successive Rule 3.851 motion.
2. Whether the postconviction court properly summarily denied the second successive motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed