Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of James Milton Dailey’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The court held that Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State did not apply retroactively to Dailey’s death sentence, which became final in 1996, although Justice Pariente concurred in the result while asserting that Hurst should apply retroactively.
Holdings
- Hurst does not apply retroactively to Dailey's death sentence because the sentence became final in 1996.
Questions Presented
- Whether Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State apply retroactively to Dailey's death sentence, which became final in 1996.
- Whether Dailey was entitled to post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 based on the alleged Hurst violation.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016)(followed)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017)(followed)
- Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017)(followed)
- Dailey v. State, 594 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1991)(applied)
- Dailey v. State, 659 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1095 (1996)(applied)
- Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 41 (2017)(discussed)
- Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016)(discussed)
- Middleton v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S637, 2017 WL 2374697 (Fla. June 1, 2017)(discussed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…