Lucas v. State

Annotate this Case

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

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-589 ____________ HAROLD GENE LUCAS, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 24, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Harold Gene Lucas’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Lucas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Lucas’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 Lucas’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, Lucas responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Lucas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lucas is not entitled to relief. Lucas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. See Lucas v. State, 613 So. 2d 408, 409 (Fla. 1992).1 Lucas’s sentence of death became final in 1993. Lucas v. Florida, 510 U.S. 845 (1993). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lucas’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lucas’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lucas, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. QUINCE, J., recused. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. 1. While the jury’s vote recommending a sentence of death is not reflected in this Court’s opinion on direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of eleven to one. Lucas v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 682 F.3d 1342, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2012); see Appellant’s Br. in Resp. to Show Cause Order, Lucas v. State, No. SC17-589 (Fla. Oct. 12, 2017), at 3. -2- 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 Lee County, Joseph Cardwell Fuller, Jr., Judge - Case No. 361976CF000588000ACH James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis, and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 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.