Windom v. State

Annotate this Case

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

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-902 ____________ CURTIS WINDOM, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [January 23, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Curtis Windom’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Windom’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Windom’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 Windom’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, Windom responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Windom’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Windom is not entitled to relief. Windom was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each count following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432, 435 (Fla. 1995). Windom’s sentences of death became final in 1995. Windom v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1012 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Windom’s sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Windom’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Windom, 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. -2- An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge - Case No. 481992CF001305000AOX James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ali Andrew Shakoor, and Ann Marie Mirialakis, 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.