Marquard v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying John Christopher Marquard’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Marquard 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). Marquard was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Marquard’s sentence of death became final in 1995. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Marquard’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Marquard’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-862 ____________ JOHN CHRISTOPHER MARQUARD, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 24, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review John Christopher Marquard’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Marquard’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Marquard’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 Marquard’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, Marquard responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Marquard’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Marquard is not entitled to relief. Marquard was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Marquard v. State, 641 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 1994). Marquard’s sentence of death became final in 1995. Marquard v. Florida, 513 U.S. 1132 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Marquard’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Marquard’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Marquard, 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 -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 St. Johns County, Howard Mason Maltz, Judge - Case No. 551991CF002418XXAXMX James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Adriana Corso, and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm 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.