Heath v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Ronald Palmer Heath’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Heath was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Heath was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Heath’s sentence of death became final in 1995. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Heath’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Heath’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-1808 ____________ RONALD PALMER HEATH, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 28, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Ronald Palmer Heath’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Heath’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Heath’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), Heath responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Heath’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Heath is not entitled to relief. Heath was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660, 663 (Fla. 1994). Heath’s sentence of death became final in 1995. Heath v. Florida, 515 U.S. 1162 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Heath’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Heath’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Heath, 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 Alachua County, James M. Colaw, Judge - Case No. 011989CF003026AXXXXX Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida; and Sonya Rudenstine, Gainesville, Florida, -2- for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Donahue, 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.