Eriese Alphonso Tisdale v. State of Florida

Summary

**Hurst error; death penalty; nonunanimous jury recommendation; harmless error review.** The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Tisdale's first-degree murder conviction of a law enforcement officer and other charges but vacated the death sentence because the jury's 9-3 death recommendation violated *Hurst* (requiring unanimity), and the error was not harmless. The court rejected arguments that Chapter 2016-13 or § 775.082(2) mandated an automatic life sentence, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a new penalty phase and remanding for resentencing.

Holdings

1. Yes, because the jury's nonunanimous death recommendation (9-3) constitutes Hurst error that is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. No, because jeopardy attached before the new law and the death penalty was a permissible sentence at that time, so double jeopardy does not bar a new penalty phase.
3. No, as consistently rejected in Caylor v. State.

Questions Presented

1. Whether chapter 2016-13, Laws of Florida, entitles Tisdale to a life sentence without parole based on double jeopardy principles.
2. Whether Tisdale is entitled to automatic commutation of his death sentence to life under section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes (2012).
3. Whether Tisdale is entitled to a new penalty phase under Hurst v. State due to the nonunanimous jury recommendation for death.

Disposition

other