Morris v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Robert D. Morris’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Morris 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). Morris was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Morris’s sentence of death became final in May 2002. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Morris’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Morris’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-873 ____________ ROBERT D. MORRIS, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 26, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Robert D. Morris’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Morris’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Morris’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 Morris’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, Morris responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Morris’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Morris is not entitled to relief. Morris was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in May 2002. Morris v. State, 811 So. 2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Morris’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Morris’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morris, 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. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge - Case No. 531994CF003961A1XXXX -2- James Viggiano, Jr., 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 Scott A. Browne, 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.