Finney v. State

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s order denying Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief under 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).

Specifically, The Supreme Court held that the Court’s prior denial of Appellant’s postconviction appeal raising similar claims was a procedural bar to the claim at issue in this appeal. Further, the Court held that Appellant’s claim did not entitle him to Hurst relief. Therefore, Appellant’s motion was properly denied.

Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-1495 ____________ CHARLES WILLIAM FINNEY, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. December 28, 2018 PER CURIAM. We have for review Charles William Finney’s appeal of the postconviction court’s order denying Finney’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Finney’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). Finney 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 Finney v. State, 235 So. 3d 279 (Fla.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 197 (2018), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Finney’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Finney’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 Finney, 235 So. 3d at 279-80; Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217; see also Foster v. State, No. SC18-860, 2018 WL 6379348, at *2-4 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018) (explaining why the “elements of ‘capital first-degree murder’ ” argument derived from Hurst and the legislation implementing Hurst “has no merit”). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Finney’s motion. It is so ordered. LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, J., concur in result. QUINCE, J., recused. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Michelle Sisco, Judge - Case No. 291991CF001611000AHC Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Suzanne Keffer, Chief Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Scott Gavin, Staff Attorney, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant -2- Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee -3-
Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s order denying Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida or Hurst v. State.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.