Brown v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Paul Anthony Brown’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Brown 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). Brown was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Brown’s sentence of death became final in 1999. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Brown’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Brown’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-2086 ____________ PAUL ANTHONY BROWN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 28, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Paul Anthony Brown’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Brown’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Brown’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), Brown responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Brown’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Brown is not entitled to relief. Brown was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Brown v. State, 721 So. 2d 274, 276-77 (Fla. 1998). Brown’s sentence of death became final in 1999. Brown v. Florida, 526 U.S. 1102 (1999). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Brown’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Brown’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Brown, 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 Volusia County, Terence R. Perkins, Judge - Case No. 641992CF034756XXXAES Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant -2- Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Doris Meacham, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, 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.