Jennings v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Brandy Bain Jennings’ motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Jennings 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). Jennings was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Jennings’ sentence of death became final in 1999. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Jennings’ sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Jennings’ motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-938 ____________ BRANDY BAIN JENNINGS, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 29, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Brandy Bain Jennings’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Jennings’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Jennings’ 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 Jennings’ appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Jennings responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Jennings’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Jennings is not entitled to relief. A jury convicted Jennings of three counts of first-degree murder and recommended a death sentence for each murder by a vote of ten to two. Jennings v. State, 718 So. 2d 144, 147 (Fla. 1998). Following the jury’s recommendations, the trial court sentenced Jennings to death on all three counts of murder. Id. Jennings’ sentences of death became final in 1999. Jennings v. Florida, 527 U.S. 1042 (1999). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jennings’ sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Jennings’ motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jennings, 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 Collier County, Frederick Robert Hardt, Judge - Case No. 111995CF002284AXXXXX Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Bri Lacy, Staff Attorney, and Paul Kalil, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 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.