Owen v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 seeking 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).

Appellant was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Appellant’s death sentence became final in 1992. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Appellant’s sentence of death, and therefore, the circuit court properly denied Appellant’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-382 ____________ DUANE EUGENE OWEN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [June 26, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Duane Eugene Owen’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Owen’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Owen’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). Owen responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Owen’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Owen is not entitled to relief. Owen was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Owen v. State, 596 So. 2d 985, 987 (Fla. 1992). His sentence of death became final in 1992. Owen v. Florida, 506 U.S. 921 (1992). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Owen’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Owen’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Owen, 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 Palm Beach County, Glenn David Kelley, Judge - Case No. 501984CF004000AXXXMB James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, James L. Driscoll, Jr., David Dixon Hendry, and Gregory W. Brown, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, -2- for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Celia A. Terenzio, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, 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.