Jones v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Marvin Burnett Jones’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Jones 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). Jones was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Jones’s sentence of death became final in 1997. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Jones’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Jones’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-497 ____________ MARVIN BURNETT JONES, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 22, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Marvin Burnett Jones’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Jones’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Jones’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 Jones’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, Jones responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Jones’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Jones is not entitled to relief. Jones was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Jones v. State, 690 So. 2d 568, 569-70 (Fla. 1996). Jones’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Jones v. Florida, 522 U.S. 880 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Jones’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jones, 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. -2- An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Waddell Arlie Wallace, Judge - Case No. 161993CF002757AXXXMA Robert A. Norgard of Norgard, Norgard, & Chastang, Bartow, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, 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.