Clark v. State

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Ronald Wayne Clark Jr.’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Clark 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). Clark was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Clark’s sentence of death became final in 1993. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Clark’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Clark’s motion.

Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-587 ____________ RONALD WAYNE CLARK, JR., Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 23, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Ronald Wayne Clark, Jr.’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Clark’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Clark’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 Clark’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, Clark responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Clark’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Clark is not entitled to relief. Clark was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Clark v. State, 613 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 1992).1 Clark’s sentence of death became final in 1993. Clark v. Florida, 510 U.S. 836 (1993). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Clark’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Clark’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Clark, 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 1. Although our decision affirming Clark’s death sentence does not specify the number of Clark’s jurors who voted to recommend death, our decision affirming the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief states that “[t]he jury voted eleven to one to recommend death.” Clark v. State, 35 So. 3d 880, 884 (Fla. 2010). -2- 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 Duval County, Russell L. Healey, Judge - Case No. 161990CF010067AXXXMA Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Wilton Manners, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann 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.