Damren v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Floyd William Damren’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Damren was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Damren was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Damren’s sentence of death became final in 1998. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Damren’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Damren’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-1080 ____________ FLOYD WILLIAM DAMREN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 2, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Floyd William Damren’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Damren’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Damren’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 Damren’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, Damren responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Damren’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Damren is not entitled to relief. Damren was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Damren v. State, 696 So. 2d 709, 710 (Fla. 1997). Damren’s sentence of death became final in 1998. Damren v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1054 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Damren’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Damren’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Damren, 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, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Clay County, Michael Scott Sharrit, Judge - Case No. 101994CF000537XXAXMX -2- Robert S. Friedman, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Karin L. Moore and Stacy R. Biggart, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Northern Region, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.