San Martin v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Pablo San Martin’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that San Martin 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). San Martin was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. San Martin’s sentence of death became final in 1998. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to San Martin’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of San Martin’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-1778 ____________ PABLO SAN MARTIN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 28, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Pablo San Martin’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying San Martin’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. San Martin’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). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), San Martin responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing San Martin’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that San Martin is not entitled to relief. San Martin was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. San Martin v. State, 705 So. 2d 1337, 1342 (Fla. 1997). San Martin’s sentence of death became final in 1998. San Martin v. Florida, 525 U.S. 841 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to San Martin’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of San Martin’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by San Martin, 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 Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge - Case No. 131992CF006089C000XX Gustavo J. Garcia-Montes, Miami, Florida, -2- for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Melissa J. Roca and Brian H. Zack, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, 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.