Burns v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Daniel Burns, Jr.’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Burns 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). Burns was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Burns’ sentence of death became final in 1998. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Burns’ sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Burns’ motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-726 ____________ DANIEL BURNS, JR., Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 23, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Daniel Burns, Jr.’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Burns’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Burns’ 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 Burns’ 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, Burns responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Burns’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Burns is not entitled to relief. Burns was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Burns v. State, 699 So. 2d 646, 652 (Fla. 1997). Burns’ sentence of death became final in 1998. Burns v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1121 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Burns’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Burns’ motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Burns, 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. 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 Manatee County, Diana Lee Moreland, Judge - Case No. 411987CF002014CFAXMA James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Mark S. Gruber, and Julie A. Morley, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa Martin, 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.