Booker 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, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief under Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016).

In his motion, Appellant 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. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court’s previous denial of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising similar claims was a procedural bar to the claims Appellant raised in this appeal.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-541 ____________ STEPHEN TODD BOOKER, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. August 30, 2018 PER CURIAM. We have for review Stephen Todd Booker’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Booker’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Booker’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). Booker 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), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Booker’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Booker’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the claims at issue in this appeal. All of Booker’s claims depend upon the retroactive application of Hurst, to which we have held he is not entitled. See Booker v. Jones, 235 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 2018); Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Booker’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Booker, 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. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Alachua County, William Elbridge Davis, Judge - Case No. 011977CF002332AXXXXX Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, and Ann Finnell of Finnell, McGuinness, Nezami & Andux, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee -2-

Primary Holding

***

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.