Rodriguez v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Florida Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Florida Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Criminal. P. 3.851, holding that this Court’s prior denial of Appellant’s postconviction appeal raising similar claims was a procedural bar to the claim at issue in this appeal.
Appellant’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and the Supreme Court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if his motion was not procedurally barred, Appellant was not entitled to relief under Hurst or the legislation implementing the rights recognized in Hurst.
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-1042 ____________ MANUEL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. December 13, 2018 PER CURIAM. We have for review Manuel Antonio Rodriguez’s appeal of the postconviction court’s order denying Rodriguez’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Rodriguez’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). Rodriguez responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), and Rodriguez v. State, 237 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed, No. 186505 (U.S. July 2, 2018), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Rodriguez’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Rodriguez’s postconviction appeal raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the claim at issue in this appeal, which in any event, does not entitle him to Hurst relief. See Foster v. State, No. SC18-860, 2018 WL 6379348 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018); Rodriguez, 237 So. 3d at 919; Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. We previously affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Rodriguez’s claims for Hurst relief pursuant to Hitchcock. See Rodriguez, 237 So. 3d at 919. In this case, relying on Hurst and the Legislature’s amendments to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme in response to Hurst pursuant to chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida, Rodriguez contends that the elements of “capital murder” have existed since before Hurst and denying him relief amounts to a due process violation because he has not been found “guilty” of “capital murder.” However, chapter 2017-1 codified the Hurst requirements, and, as we have previously explained, Rodriguez’s three sentences of death were imposed following a jury’s unanimous recommendations for death and became final in 2000. See Rodriguez, 237 So. 3d at 919. Therefore, because Rodriguez is not entitled to relief under Hurst or the legislation implementing the rights -2- recognized in Hurst, we affirm the denial of Rodriguez’s motion. See Rodriguez, 237 So. 3d 919; Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Rodriguez, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. CANADY, C.J., concurs in result. ANY MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MAY BE FILED WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION. NOT FINAL UNTIL THIS TIME PERIOD EXPIRES TO FILE A REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Nushin G. Sayfie, Judge - Case No. 131993CF025817B000XX Neal Andre Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, Special Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Marta Jaszczolt, Staff Attorney, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Rachel Kamoutsas, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, 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.
